The second chapter of this somewhat slow-burning series has arrived, and with an apparently meagre theme, hardly justifying large-scale treatment.
But while the subject might seem a triviality, it is a dainty alteration to the body of Super rugby that nonetheless aims to effect a strikingly transformative impression.
A leitmotif of this series has been proposals that cost the ARU nothing whatsoever, and this will be no different: it will instead create revenue.
The concept is to remake Super rugby as a union of three national competitions by the single and unfussy addition of a semi-final and final within each conference. This means two weeks more rugby.
Two weeks are easily obtained. South Africa can shunt along their Currie Cup, and New Zealand’s objections elsewhere can be gently overcome, for the change would be very much in their interest too.
The problem strikes at the heart of Super Rugby’s uncertain appeal. It has never yet managed quite to draw in supporters in the way that national competitions do, however attractive the variety and scale it brings.
This has meant an unnecessary loss of fans, revenue, and status.
Competitions such as the NPC, Currie Cup and hypothetical Australian national competition would never alter this, as whatever their charms and practical benefits, they are effectively lesser-tier sideshows.
Nor would integrating national tournaments within Super Rugby replace the third tier competitions – it would be a separate operation altogether.
Super Rugby will not be abandoned as a format, despite its flaws. It will rather be modified in order to remove these weaknesses, and this will take extensive restructuring.
The increase in the number of derbies has remedied this to some degree, as would further teams to involve a deeper picture within each country.
But nonetheless the fact remains that the final prize is the achievement of an international, rather than national, goal.
In one fell swoop a semi-final and final equate to three separate national competitions taking place within the larger international structure.
There would need to be no change whatsoever in the set-up of the competition. Three separate tables would be drawn from the derby matches, and the four finals taken from these.
Everything else could remain as it is.
The benefits are legion.
Australia and New Zealand are in weak financial positions, always lying on the brink of an abyss, while South Africa cannot afford to keep important players onshore.
The two semi-finals and final would rake in vast television audiences and full houses, generating crucial extra revenue.
At present the season becomes meaningless relatively early on for many teams, while with an intra-conference finals series they would have something to play for until far later. A further attraction for supporters.
Given the financial weakness of many of the participating countries, the season should be expanded beyond the two weeks proposed here anyway. More product for the broadcasters means more money from the TV deal.
This is why SANZAR received a 17% increase with Super Rugby’s expansion in 2011. More matches, more product. The game is losing its players, falling behind its competitors, flirting with financial doom.
It needs more money, and among other things that means a longer season.
An objection might be raised that players have a high enough workload already, and cannot sustain extra weeks.
So how will these players deal with an increased workload? The first question to ask in response is: who are these players? Because those in question are most certainly not the majority of Super Rugby players.
These are in fact only around 30 of the 150-odd Super Rugby players in each country who have to continue to a full international season after Super Rugby (proportionately fewer with any expansion and a larger number of teams).
Good rotation of international players, as exemplified at the Brumbies, would be the obvious way around this problem. However not all franchises will voluntarily withdraw their best players from matches.
So they must be obliged to. At the beginning of the season the national coach can name 30 players who must be rested for a certain number of games each season; something like four games, maybe one or two more.
It would be up to the Super coaches which matches they choose to rest the players for, but they probably would opt for those against the weakest opponents. This would allow international players to last for both an extended domestic and international season.
It might not be ideal, but rotation and resting should take place in long seasons anyway, and the financial need is too great. Besides, the same rules would apply to all franchises, evening things out.
Of course there are other expedients to attempt to stem the terrible economic woes endured by SANZAR, and the disastrous hemorrhaging of players to Europe. This is a simple one that solves other issues at the same time, and not only costs nothing itself but would create more money.
Nor would the national finals compete with the international finals series. It would take place earlier, perhaps with the derbies concentrated more in the first half of the season to lead up to a national final taking place a fair interval before the international final.
Two trophies to aim for is also enticing for all the teams concerned. It gives them more of a chance to win something each year than the very rarely-won international Super title.
Some teams might never win the international title, but could somehow take a national trophy.
Obviously the more teams there are in each conference, the better such a finals series would be. But for many other reasons there should be more teams.
Supporters would be extremely keen to see national semi-finals and finals.
There can be a greater scale of achievement with a ‘double’, and a more interesting range of aims.
There are of course, two chances rather than one each year to win a trophy.
And all this, for two weeks more rugby.
Rob9
Guest
Ok, I agree size isn’t everything (and it’s one of the key messages I’ve been trying to deliver to you). If it was, the Rebels would be well above the Force’s home crowds. But what IS important is rugby culture and that’s why a team like the Force get ok crowds. Sometimes really good crowds, e.g. when they played the Crusaders a few weeks back, spectators come because there is a genuine rugby interest there which is something rugby doesn’t possess in Adelaide. And you can’t pin your expected crowds on things always being rosie on the field. KPM, you have to understand, when looking at moving into a new market that there’s never any ‘real’ evidence to speak of unless there’s already been a team there. But what can be done when making such decisions is an analysis which is what I’ve been doing here and as you should be able to see, the numbers simply don’t stack up to justify Adelaide’s inclusion. OK, you’ve brought up the Adelaide 7sevens twice now and I was hoping for your sake you wouldn’t. You do know where Australia’s IRB sevens event is now held?? I’ll give you a clue, it ain’t in Adelaide. Have a guess at one of the contributing factors? If you guessed crowds you’d be bang on. If you’ve got or had Fox and watched the World Series, you would have seen the Adelaide event had an atrocious atmosphere which isn’t common when you look at the pumping stadiums at other events. Bar the fact they were throwing a Gillbet around, it looked like a test match between Australia and Bangladesh. A close mate played rugby for Hong Kong and often travelled to these events and as an Australian expat he said he was embarrassed to go to Adelaide. Not only were the crowds low, he said the stadium was effectively filled with sponsors and no real fans that create the outstanding atmospheres at these tournaments. In any event, these 7evens stops are annual events and are basically a bit of a party and it’s still drawing a long bow to suggest that they should justify a full time professional 15’s team. The fact that Adelaide was such a flop and was unable to generate that infamous party atmosphere says a lot about their rugby culture (or lack of one). When is a good time for Adelaide you ask? How about when that rugby culture and following exists? Which it clearly doesn’t. And expecting that plopping a professional team there to be a viable and sustainable option to turn things around is pi$sing in the wind. Invest in the grassroots and focus on development. Throw the South Australians a Wallaby game more often. Now that the Oval’s developments is coming to an end, hopefully that becomes a reality. This is what’s going to turn it around. And when the levels of support have grown to a more sustainable and justifiable level, then go for it. But you have to realise were still a way off from that point. You also have to understand that TV value goes up with increased content and eyes on screens. More teams will increase content yes, but Adelaide isn’t going to give you a big jump in eyes on screens. Please try and understand that although there are almost 1.3 million people there, just not that many of them are interested in rugby right now. Not that many of them know that 2 rugby codes exist. You have to get the balance right with increasing content and ensuring that all of the teams involved are justified by their levels of support otherwise they become a drain on revenue as opposed to adding to the pie. In my opinion, you cannot justify Adelaide due to the expected level of support a professional team would receive.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
I don't think it can be assumed that 50% less population equals 50% less crowd. I think that instead once you have a fairly large number in a city or area, you have a certain interest in a new team which leads to a certain number of fans. This may not actually change that much with a greater population. I think if a team is attractive and successful it will draw a fan base be it in small Canberra or vast Sydney. If it is not attractive and unentertaining it will not. Hence the Perth and Rebels crowds are suprisingly similar. Again there is no actual evidence the crowds wouldn't come in Adelaide, only speculation. Look at 7s in Adeialde. That drew crowds so there is positive evidence that rugby can create interest there. Besides, it's not necessarily the case that a smaller city with less going on draws smaller crowds. Often because there is less going on there is a more active interest on what does actually happen. In contrast, there can be a less keen and interested culture in larger cities. So for myriad reasons Adelaide might well work, and the pull is great. The opportunity to create completely new fans and players from nothing is too important not to be taken up. And if something isn't done now, then when? What would change quickly enough to make it a good time to happen? In any case whatever the crowds, there would be some, and the extra TV deal money for including such a large potential market might well take care of it financially, as might good sponsors.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
I agree it isn't about hitting a certain number, it's much more about making sure there is some coverage in the crucial areas and markets that are large and can take growth. So you wouldn't need to rush to 11 or 14 just because there might in theory be the support for them. It would be better just to focus on the crucial large markets that are now neglected and have particular potential for growth: al four of them :-)
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
:-)
Rob9
Guest
KPM, it doesn’t matter if you expand to include 1 team, 3 teams or 10 teams. You expand to the markets that can effectively accommodate professional rugby representation. Right now I believe it is the 3 areas I have discussed, no more. Expanding for the sake of hitting a certain number is an unsustainable and unhealthy way of looking at the whole process of expansion. You expand on a case by case basis not to make up numbers.
Rob9
Guest
Firstly the size of Perth and Adelaide is completely relevant. I don’t see too many people coming from Coober Pedy to watch a game of Super Rugby. And can you please acknowledge basic facts, SA’s population is 1.65 million while WA’s is 2.45 million. The gap between the 2 states is even greater than it is between the two capitals of these states. Future growth does matter somewhat. But what’s key with the difference between Perth and Adelaide is the growth that has occurred up until this point. Surely you must recognise Perth has left Adelaide in its dust since it overtook it in the mid 80’s resulting in huge expat communities of people from rugby heartlands. You’re quote “Adelaide is big enough to support a Super Rugby” says it all. You’re only looking at numbers and it’s just not how things are done when making these sorts of decisions. When Super Rugby was first introduced, if the ARU was simply concerned with numbers, surely they would have based a team in Melbourne with a population of 3 and a half million (back then) as opposed to a heartland like Canberra with only 300,000? And again when the next round of expansion took place, they went with a city that had a recognised rugby following in the form of Perth, despite it being 3 times smaller than the other serious contender in Melbourne. There is only so many ways I can explain this to you and there are only so many relevant examples of such concepts at play that I can provide you with, BUT, please try and understand it’s not as simple as looking at numbers. Gigantic crowds aren’t necessary, but some crowds are. Consider Perth is 50% larger than Adelaide and they get crowds around the 15,000 mark so we can assume that an Adelaide team would get crowds 50% less than this, so that takes it down to 10,000. Then factor in the considerably smaller rugby culture that exists in Adelaide and the much smaller expat community that they do in fact have in Perth. Very quickly, we can assume that an Adelaide team would get dismal crowd numbers to their home games. Like much of this, we’ll have to agree to disagree about what may or may not appeal to non-heartland areas but in any event, a code simply pinning themselves to the hopes of a professional team catching on due to ‘curiosity’ and ‘international appeal’ doesn’t have a strong case in assuming success. There needs to be more substance than that. Existing popularity and grassroots structure are also important and they’re next to non-existent in Adelaide. You’ve had a South Australian effectively tell you this on another thread but you’re just choosing to listen to what you want to hear and breezing over the rest, despite it being real and factual.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Rob9 I don't think there's a gigantic difference between 3 more and 4 more. I would be happy with 4 more, as basically all essential or rather neglected major bases would be covered, even if there would still be much more room for expansion. I think the biggest room would obviously be Sydney and your four team concept has much merit. Indeed all the sites you mentioned have potential, not to mention Brisbane 2. But it's the big 3-4 which are the ones that need urgent treatment. I would say if those places got teams the game within 5-10 years would erupt in success and scale. None of the current Australian schoolboys who get lost to league would do so, talent that gets lost in club rugby would not do so, young talented players would not go overseas, playing numbers would soar, popularity would soar, TV revenue would leap. The number of high quality players available for the Wallabies would be far higher. In total it would be a game-changing move.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
WCR if Hobart could draw that kind of crowd it would be very interesting to see what Adelaide could draw. I suspect that would give an indication of the fascination with something new that would take hold of it. Besides, aren't some small risks necessary? Who dares wins?
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Rob9 firstly as you know the population size that is relevant is not Perth or Adelaide but Western Australia and Southern Australia. Once you take those figures into account, 2.2 million versus 1.7 million, the difference is not that vast. You mention future growth of population, but this simply doesn't matter, because now the population of Southern Australia is already big enough to support a team in terms of numbers. It's immaterial how quickly it grows, so long as it doesn't shrink. The expat community and rugby presence may not be as large, but it is still something, and gigantic crowds are not necessary. The important thing is that rugby is a code that new fans can relate to because many will have some familiarity with the Wallabies, and any decent number out of such a large population, because 1.7 million is large, is enough to produce a reasonable crowd. What's more rugby does have more genuine appeal than the NRL or AFL as a national code, because the NRL and AFL are effectively local competitions masquerading as national ones: think of the majority of teams being in Sydney and Melbourne respectively. The A-league's success shows how a code can grow in Adelaide by having national appeal as part of a truly national competition, and international appeal as a sport played internationally which can be identified with. Besides, there isn't really evidence that a market does not exist, only speculation that it might not. What about 7s in Adelaide? That drew crowds. But I should say Southern Australia, not Adelaide, this extra half a million are not to be disregarded.
Rob9
Guest
Perth and Adelaide are dissimilar and until you can get your head around that we’re at a dead end here. Perth is 50% larger and the gap between it and Adelaide is only getting bigger as WA continues to be one of the fastest growing states in the country. And more importantly, the demographical makeup of the markets are different. Much of Perth’s growth to this point has come from places where rugby is popular. Here are some stats for you to illustrate the differing levels of growth between the two places over a reasonably short period of time. I hope it will give you a snap shot of just how many expats would make up each market. The 1986 census was the first where Perth’s population moved above Adelaide’s. Perth’s population was 1.05 million while Adelaide’s was 1.03. As we’ve gone over, Perth today has a population of about 1.89 million while Adelaide’s is 1.28. So in 27 years, Perth has grown by 840,000 while Adelaide’s has grown by only 250,000. Considering Perth’s impressive growth rate that has been driven by interstate and international migration, there’s a significantly larger expat community that exist in Perth that is hugely beneficial for rugby’s presence. In terms of existing rugby culture, comparing Perth pre-Super rugby to current Adelaide conditions is just a false analogy. Sure rugby has never been ‘big’ in Perth, but rugby has always had a considerable presence that dates back well before the Force came along. This presence has been driven by the large expat population that we’ve talked about above (one that doesn’t exist in Adelaide). My cousins grew up in Perth in the 90’s and were always involved in rugby through their wide reaching club structure and a strong school based competition. They played alongside an incredible number of South African’s and people like them who had come across the Nullarbor from states on the eastern seaboard. The rugby roots in Perth have always run far deeper than they ever have in SA and this isn’t a recent phenomenon due to the arrival of the Force. No teams have failed so far because expansion has been a thorough and well thought out process and the ARU haven’t taken a brainless decision such as entering a market like Adelaide. They look at conditions that I’ve discussed above which have all been put in front of you, yet you still can’t seem to grasp it. You’d really make a terrible marketer KPM- I hope you haven’t got a share portfolio that’s weighted towards companies that sell ice to Eskimos and sand to Arabs. Understand when there’s just not a market there for something. There are key differences between a place like Perth and another like Adelaide. Significant gaps in population size, population makeup, growth and existing rugby culture is why the Force became our fourth Super Rugby club and Adelaide has never been seriously thrown up as an expansion option. I’d expect that to remain the case for the foreseeable future. You’re really clutching at straws when your arguments centre around ‘curiosity’ and the fact that rugby has global appeal. THEY DON’T CARE!!! They support a code like a religion that’s only played in Australia. If anything a stronger national push (which is an advantage the AFL and NRL have over rugby) is more beneficial when moving into a market like Adelaide. Soccer has always had the Socceroos, but the games growth has exploded on the back of the A-League’s success. It’s another reason why rugby should build its national presence in our underrepresented heartlands before taking a risky move like moving into a market with conditions like Adelaide’s. Conditions that have to become more favourable before taking such a risk, otherwise it’s throwing money the ARU don’t have at a black hole. You’ve accused me of speculating while I’m providing you with real facts and legitimate arguments. Your arguments are speculation at its best. A ‘hold your breath and hope’ approach has never succeeded in business and in particular the unforgiving business of professional sport. Quite simply, a deeper level of thinking is required which you’re clearly not ready to do.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Rob9 you're making Perth and Adelaide seem more dissimilar than they are. It's not as if rugby was particularly big in Perth before the Force, even if it was bigger than Adelaide. The cases are quite similar regarding rugby's presence. Also, whis incredible trepidation? There is this mortal terror of things failing when thinking about rugby comes, when in fact none of the teams so far have failed, and the only problems they have had are due to bad administration rather than any flaws in where they are. Rugby has a national and international appeal which South Australia could instantly feel part of. Unlike league, many will be aware of the Wallabies and have some exposure to them. Super rugby is not a local affair like the NRL, it is already international and more fully national, which is why new markets can identify it more than they would a league team. This is also the difference with the AFL case in Western Sydney. AFL is again a local product which has little cultural appeal outside its heartlands, just like league. Rugby has international appeal already, and South Australia can tap into that. THAT is why it would spread better than NRL or AFL. They are essentially local products that appeal to local rivalries trying to appeal to places which can't understand inter-Sydney or inter-Melbourne rivalries. And that's where Super rugby is different. It's appeal is both more national and international. South Australia is a state that can play other states and Adelaide is a city that can play other cities, both in Australia and South Africa and New Zealand. It has far more potential to take off that AFL or NRL whose failures are not comparable.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
A hybrid club/rep model would be the only model palatable to as many stakeholders as possible. Many won't be happy but it would provide the necessary structure we need. As for Adelaide. Big risk. Huge in fact. Their is only a very small grassroots set up in the city. The difference between the likes of Adelaide and Perth is that Perth had a strong grassroots system behind it before the Force entered the competition. If you were to take bums on seats as an indicator we could surmise that Hobart would be a better fit considering they had 12,000 turn out for the Rebels/Tahs trial earlier in the year.
jeznez
Roar Guru
yeah but I tune in for just about any match involving an Aussie Super team anyway so I am not going to sway the viewing numbers!
Rob9
Guest
KPM, I’m all for expansion. But expansion for the sake of expansion is going to do nothing but run the game into the ground by sucking funds dry. It’s clear you want it all at once. Yes the ARU have the hand break on which is frustrating but mate your breaks have failed altogether and you’re hurtling towards the end of the pier. Expansion has to be calculated and controlled otherwise you’re burning money. Considering where we are, 3 more teams in the areas I’ve discussed will put us in a positive and sustainable position. Not that expansion isn’t already a risk, but anything more than 3 new teams at this stage is a risk too far. Understand that teams cost money and to create a new team you want to be entering it into favourable conditions. For the short to mid-term, these 3 extra teams provide us with value and effective coverage. Anything more eats into the bottom line. As the game continues its growth in new and established markets, then absolutely look at other expansion teams such as Sydney 3, Gosford, Wollongong, Adelaide, Townsville and the Sunshine Coast. As far as the Sydney market goes, in the future anything more than 4 teams effectively covering the east, west, north and south is excessive. You’re dead right, 30+ years is a long time scale and it’s why decisions made now shouldn’t consider what may be needed 30+ years down the track. Hence a Western Sydney team should represent all of Western Sydney and nothing less to allow it the chance to maximise its potential. I don’t see the sense in chasing the overcrowded and inefficient NRL system with teams lying on top of each other in Sydney. Madness and as I said, if the NRL could have it’s time again I’m sure it would have gone about things a different way to create a more healthy and sustainable situation in Sydney.
Johnno
Guest
Rob9 , yes love jumping into these debates with you and KPM. The "madness of king George", wasn't that a play who care and who knows. With the Boston and seattle argument, your 100% right I only quoted metro number's. I didn't think about the greater surrounding population. That's a very good point. And of course the massive TV market of the states helps smaller franchises, and places anyway, not that greater Boston or Seattle are small but in general term's. Maybe GWS and the AFL marketing department , used that to expand into Canberra. Adelaide has the population, but admittley cash is the initial outlay. But free advertising happens from haveing a super rugby team, winning or losing is irrelevant, it's having a prescence in the market. Western force have found that with record junior number's now for rugby. Get the parent's to pay the ergo fee's maybe, find a few sponsors perhaps to fund the junior stuff, easier said than done i know. Maybe tv rights would cover the costs of funding a team in Adelaide I don't know. A good modernised Adelaide oval soon to re-open is a good start. But yes it's expensive,and the ARU don't have much coin, have to be aggressive in getting funding from sponsor's or somewhere . And a super rugby club would run at a loss initially. And population isn't everything true. But as you say it can't be ignored Adelaide. Maybe a 7even's team in Bill Pulver's dreamy summer seven's tournament idea's, or even an Adelaide team in Pulver's Super B artworks lol, who know's. Then off to the Pulver's for a BBQ summer sioree to talk about the amazing world of super rugby B ha ha. But seriously , we are all on the same page Adelaide can't be neglected, just finding the right plan it the tough one, and an affordable plan.
Rob9
Guest
KPM, I’m not suggesting sitting back and leaving Adelaide alone. Far from it! I’m suggesting we make a smarter investment in Adelaide than creating a professional presence, pouring millions of dollars into it over a significant amount of time and expecting it to catch on out of curiosity. Do you know how many years the AFL expects to be investing in the non-heartland markets of Western Sydney and the Gold Coast? 20 years! We’re talking about the largest code in the country here with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. Adelaide would take a similar sort of investment as what the AFL are pouring into the Suns and Giants and I’m sorry but the ARU just don’t have that sort of money lying around. And good luck trying to find funding from private investors willing to pour money into a ludicrous idea like a professional rugby team based in Adelaide. They’re going to look at the facts and figures that I’ve listed above and come to the same conclusion that there’s no money to be made in such a concept. And an ROI is kind of important when engaging with investors. Grassroots and development now to build up a supporter base and when the time is right and the numbers are more in your favour then absolutely provide the place with professional representation. But that’s still a way off yet. Johnno, Johnno, Johnno. Thanks for jumping into the madness that is debating the merits of a professional rugby team in Adelaide. Mate you might want to look a little further at those population figures you’re quoting on US cities there. They’re metro areas only. I can assure you there are more than 600,000 people living in the greater Boston and Seattle areas. It would be like suggesting Brisbane only has a population of 1 million. The reality is that when you include Logan, Ipswich, Moreton Bay and Redlands, Brisbane’s ‘real’ population is up over 2 million (which is what it’s widely recognised as being). Both Boston and Seattle greater areas would be comparable to Sydney and Melbourne, not Newcastle. Meanwhile greater Adelaide’s population isn’t over 1.3 million. And in any event, I’ll state again, it’s not purely a numbers game. If it was, then absolutely Australia’s fifth largest city should be represented. Please try and understand there is more than just population to look at when gauging the potential success and popularity of a sporting team in a new market.
Johnno
Guest
Rob9. Adelaide has 1.3 million, that is still massive population number's. Most cities in the United states, are not that big. Seattle only has 620,000. Places like Boston only have 625,000 , and they all have pro sport franchises often 3 or 4 across sports. Yes there in a bigger sports market to pool funds, but the point is the number;s are not as big as Adelaide , slashed by half. And Adelaide is closer geographically to Sydney and Melbourne, and Brisbane, and by a good distance. And is half an hour behind timezone wise. Yes Perth being 2 hours behind like Auckland offer's a good constant TV slot. But so does Adelaide to. Adelaide play 2 AFL team's, and are only 30 minute behind Melbourne, they don't crowd or saturate the market, they spread it. So Adelaide with the right investment has the potential .And Adelaide in all sports, has had success in, when the investment is right. AFL, basketball ,soccer, cricket, have all had success teams in Adelaide. Adelaide ram's have been the only failure, and they were poorly planned in the height of the super league war, and they weren't the only poorly thought out team in the super league war. But now in Australia, pro sport has more of an idea of what's it's doing, and and understands pay-tv more. Adelaide has potential , 1.3 million is a big market to ignore for a country of Australia's size. And they would support rugby, and can produce world class player's eg Brock James.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Rob9 firstly I agree with Newcastle and Gold Coast for the reasons you outline, and Western Sydney presumably would be the third team of your 8. sheek advocates a third Sydney team immediately in any larger structure, on the grounds that it can divide well into three and the population is so large, it is the largest rugby heartland etc... But I think one also needs to look not just at better using these existing heartlands, but spreading the game to new pastures. Rugby may be small in Southern Australia, but it is a large area with a great potential for growth. With a Super team established, the game would grow there-it wouldn't need to grow at lightening speed but given how long growth takes it would surely make sense to start sooner rather than later. Get started now and in a decade the game will have a reasonable presence. Wait a decade and you still have very little. The goal must surely be to create, to paraphrase Brett Mckay a little while back 'markets that did not previously exist'. Not only markets in terms of fans, but players. There are players in Adelaide to be created. Rugby must in addition to better using its current playing stocks, try and create new ones where now there are none. Southern Australia is the one large state without a team left. It would complete the circle. It would significantly increase the scale of the stage on which rugby plays. For the fan, there is an easy sense to be made of playing against other large states and cities. Perhaps whatever the sport, many fans are drawn to competitions where they can compete nationally against other states and cities. Hence Western Sydney, Adelaide, Gold Coast, Newcastle are the essential teams for me, and sheek's idea of the third Sydney team is not unconvincing. Beyond that there is the possibility of a second Brisbane team but this would risk splitting the fanbase, which is probably why the NRL haven't done it. But beyond that, the next largest sites are the far smaller, Central Coast, Sunshine Coast etc....So really there are 10-11 massive areas to consider first up, and 8 or 9 in particular.
Rob9
Guest
KPM, Perth’s population is almost 1.9 million while Adelaide’s is almost 1.3 million- 600,000. WA’s population is 2.45 million (not 2.2 million) and SA’s is 1.65 million- 700,000. Let’s at least get our facts right. And what’s more important is the make-up of the population. I’m advocating areas such as Newcastle and the Gold Coast, places of between 500 and 600,000 people. But they’re rugby heartlands with strong support and grassroots that run far deeper than they do in Adelaide. As I’ve suggested to you, as well as the larger populations in both Melbourne and Perth, they have significantly larger expat communities from rugby areas. That’s what makes them valuable to rugby. Their local club structures and rugby followings are far greater than he much smaller, non-rugby heartland of Adelaide. And ‘curiosity’ is only going to get a professional club so far. Sure if a professional rugby team in Adelaide gets up and running tomorrow they’ll probably get a couple of decent crowds. But it’s just not sustainable. The sport has to be in the public’s DNA or at least a significant chunk of the population. ‘Curiosity’ has got to be the weakest justification for a professional sporting team out there. Throwing money at grassroots and development is how you force it into their DNA, not by plopping a professional team there and expecting it to catch on due to the public’s curiosity. I’m all for more content to increase revenue. That’s what 8 teams will achieve. But Adelaide isn’t that juicy a market. You need eyes on screen and at games and although there are over a million pairs of eyes there, not enough are interested to add value to the competition and any team operating in such a market will become a drain on funds. My outlook for rugby in Australia is very optimistic. I believe we can be far bigger and better than we are and 3 professional teams in the heartland areas that I’ve spoken about will help us achieve this. But there’s optimism and realism, and suggesting Adelaide as a potential host for a professional rugby team isn’t being very realistic when looking at the hard cold facts.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Johnno I can't see how the TV companies would be lured by such a will-o-the-wisp. They are not fools: they have frontal lobes. Not only would viewers rather tune into another Super game, or another code even, but if they were going to watch the match they would only be interested in the full 80 which is what they know and enjoy. The problem with 7s is that mismatches loom larger than in 15s. In 15s it's rare that even a thrashing descends into farce. Even a 70-something scoreline often involves quite a bit of breaking down defences, ingenuity in attack, process, work etc...while in 7s it's like a heavyweight against a featherweight, or a cartoon boxing match, or the boxing match in the Charlie Chaplin film City Lights. And many 7s matches are grotesque mismatches. Do we need to see Israel Dagg sleepwalking rings around the threequarters of Uruguay or whichever team New Zealand are pooled with? In fact watching these kinds of matches would surely be massively improved by consuming the vast quantities of alcohol that are mandatory at any 7s events, highlighting the farcical and non-sporting nature of the contest. The whole thing is an alcoholic blur for most spectators. This thread has got some posts but I don't think more than 4 articles should be published a day as many don't look below that and kind of assume that below is the previous day's articles, especially as there is no way of telling the differences unless you happen to remember what was published on each day. And that advertisement under the first article I'm sure leads to many never looking below the first article on the right hand column. Hundreds of readings of articles and posts and much debate are lost each day because of it, and surely it could be moved somewhere else on the page.