National Rugby Championship announcement - live updates

Agreed, back in the day when I played grade for Manly, we were Manly Rugby! Our "fans" at the time called us the blues! Now Manly are the Marlins which I can live with, my son played his first year of reps I'm U10's last year & not one of them thought they were mini Marlins, just Manly Juniors.

plus ten That is exactly the problem petty club politics in Sydney it's the fear that this comp will eventually replace their backyard comps rendering these people irrelevant that drives their disdain for Rugby outside of Sydney. the sooner they ditch them and add SA the better off we'll be.

Also population base, density, larger market more commercial opportunities, less competition etc . What works in one place will not necessarily work somewhere else. The obvious problems with this are the Sydney Clubs again.

plus one

Totally agree Chop!!! or perhaps a play on the Horse theme to go with the Brumbues... The UC Stallions!!

No Jez They will be wearing Vikings Colours, Vikings name, Vikings Logo and playing all games at Viking Park....I dont know how they expect to gain any support in Canberra, everyone outside of Tuggeranong (south side of canberra) Absolutely hates them.

I read today that ALL home games will be at Viking park in Tuggeranong......I am so P'ed off about his...The vikings have ruined another rugby comp, it almost enough to turn me off Rugby altogether!

Your the only one...Sheek from day 1 you have had your closed minded idea of how this SHOULD work and have criticised anything else. Guess what there is more than one way to do this, just because it is not your way doesn't mean it wont work. In fact i think your way is stupid, it is just replicating what we already have. My belief (and that is all it is) is that we need something different and exciting to get peoples attention and draw then into the traditional rugby that we already have. It needs to compliment...not duplicate.

Teams known for their colour is pretty commonplace and actually fairly organic - they've been given those names simply because that's what they wear. \ Names like 'Heat', 'Glory', Spirit', 'Magic' or 'Roar' are just awful and will always sound awful. Noteable exception: I've not mention 'The Western Force' because it actually sounds pretty good when you say it, particularly when they're playing the Crusaders - it sounds like a breakaway European military rising up against the Christians haha.

It may have meaning, but it still sounds stupid as a team name... If you wanted to convey the notion of a side on the up, you could do it with something catchier. Heck, even 'Jets' or 'rockets' would have been better. Though for a rugby side I'd have preferred they called themselves something with a bit more of a battle ring to it - Melbourne Spartans would have had more of a ring to it for commentary. I mean, think about it - 'here come the rising'! when Melbourne are on the attack. Just sounds bad, both grammatically and otherwise.

Perhaps Viagra could sponsor the Rising, or would that count as a performance enhancing drug?

I think Melbourne Rising ranks down there with Minnesota Wild as one of the worst sports team names in world history.

It's already been done which Tuggeranong won. Sydney and Brisbane premiers fielded understrength teams. National club competition has been debated since the 1990s. Hasn't obviously happened and premier clubs particularly in Sydney are struggling to foot the bills so why would they attempt to compete at a national level? Madness. The ARU had to go down this path.

What a stuff-up. I had hoped that common sense would prevail and that the lessons of the failure of the ARC would be learnt. But alas, that appears not to be the case. I couldn't care less about the team names, because the most important consideration is the geographical structure of the teams, which is particularly relevant to NSW and Qld (or Sydney and Brisbane if you want to be more precise). This is crucial in establishing a sustainable supporter following for the regional teams. I don't wish to be negative, as I support the concept of the NRC, as I did the ARC, but I won't refrain from voicing my criticism where I think the ARU has erred in its judgment. I have previously criticised the ARU on this blog for not having the balls to mandate how the teams for the NRC should be structured. There is no real issue with the one city teams, but with regard to Sydney and Brisbane, rather than calling for expressions of interest, the ARU should have laid down the structure within each city and forced the clubs to come to an arrangement with each other in their respective regions. The obvious structure, based on the original ARC concept was for three teams in Sydney (North, South and West) and two in Brisbane (North and South). The QRU has decided to go with a single Brisbane team and another representing Qld Country, which is fair enough, as they will at least each represent distinctly separate supporter bases. On the other hand the split-up within NSW is disastrous, as it creates an even worse scenario than that which existed in the failed ARC. The only team that has got it right is the North Harbour Rays, representing Northern Suburbs, Gordon, Manly and Warringah. Perhaps the Greater (Western) Sydney Rams, representing West Harbour, Eastwood, Parramatta, Penrith and Southern Districts, could also be considered a viable option, but I can't see what relevance that would have for Southern District's supporters, which really should be part of a southern Sydney team (South Harbour). Because of the arrogance of Sydney University and Randwick in particular in being unable to come to an agreement in forming a South Harbour franchise, we have the ridiculous situation where Randwick and Eastern Suburbs are virtually forced into an unholy alliance with NSW Country and Sydney University links up with Balmain which is not even a Premier Rugby club. The latter marriage of convenience, supposedly representing "Sydney", fails in not having a viable supporter base. Who, outside of the rusted on Sydney University and a handful of Subbies club supporters, would bother to show any interest. If clubs like Northern Suburbs and Gordon, and Manly and Warringah can put aside their longstanding rivalries, then so should the clubs in South/East Sydney, although Southern Districts was really left on the outer and had no choice but to link up with the Western Sydney clubs. This is where the ARU has failed, in trying to appease the influence of the "old boys network", instead of laying down the parameters for the new competition from the beginning.

I like the idea of a champions league Anto, I'm surprised it hasn't already been thought of?

So, if the Australian conference SR teams perform well this year, does that mean that this idea was built on a false premise? My main issue with this "third tier" idea in Australian rugby has always been that if there isn't presently enough money to generate profits consistently with a juniors-club-SR-international structure, then what in the world are we doing adding yet another layer of costs and confusion into the mix? In any business, if you are making losses, you look at what you are doing wrong and either cull your loss-making operations, or restructure them in order to make a profit. One thing which you NEVER do is to reintroduce an old product which lost you $7m in the first year you put it in place (namely, the ARC). Yes, there are some cosmetic differences between the ARC and the NRC, however they are not enough to make what failed before work this time around. The fundamental problem is NOT the fact that the Wallabies don't win enough against the All Blacks, as ARU HQ would like to believe. The problem is that there are not enough fans of rugby in Australia to financially sustain the existing club-SR-international structure at a profitable level. Adding yet another level of competition, which both dilutes the fan base and adds to the expenses, while at the same time piling more losses onto an already unprofitable business model, is ridiculous. Rugby's problem at the moment is that they don't understand business, nor how to leverage what they have into a more successful and sustainable model. For a start, junior rugby is enormously profitable for the larger clubs, and not too burdensome for the smaller ones. Understandable - it's amateur. However, it's well followed. That following tends to flow through to the senior club level for those who maintain an affiliation to their clubs. This maintenance of club loyalty throughout a person's life is woefully lacking in rugby, when compared with the NRL, or the AFL in particular. In these days of social media, that loyalty should be easier than ever. That loyalty naturally evolves into provincial and national passion. It also goes without saying that, like all other codes, you get progressively better turnouts for provincial and then national matches. However, the assumption with the NRC seems to be that if you just "invent" a whole lot of other rugby teams out of thin air, then you will somehow create an entirely new group of fans willing to pay for attending or watching their matches. Sorry, but I don't see how that works - at least in the short-term. If you want to improve the sport's appeal surely you have to focus, first and foremost, on growing its grassroots support. Once the code as a whole is profitable and sustainable, THEN you can talk about widening the competitions. This idea that somehow the losses can be stemmed by adding a new, more "exciting" layer is not just risky, but just as irresponsible as the ARC fiasco. It is also so substantially similar to that failed experiment as to remind me of Einstein's admonition that the definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same thing, yet expect a different result. In the time I've been following rugby, I've seen many changes. However, one thing has always remained constant - support starts at the club level, and usually from a very young age. If you look to soccer (obviously, the most successful football game) as an example, you see that they always build from the club level upwards. Look at AFL - the same. The NRL - same. Why does Australian rugby do exactly the opposite and build from the Wallabies backwards? To my mind, rather than a confected NRC, they should have started with a national version of Champions League, where the best clubs in each of the major States play off against each other in an end-of-season competition. Build that up first, then perhaps create a more permanent Champions competition down the track, when the supporter base can sustain the dollars required to run it. Hell, maybe even sell the best teams to rich benefactors! At the end of the day, this entire third tier idea came out of our international performance woes of the past few years. There have been various reasons proposed for that weakness and one of them is that the SR competition has stretched the already lean talent too thinly between too many franchises. It goes without saying that neither the Rebels, nor the Force could survive without 95% of players coming from NSW and QLD. At present, in all provinces except QLD, the SR clubs run at breakeven or a loss. How does imposing yet another layer of competition and expense help this in any way at all? In the end, the ARU's model for this competition has patently failed before it's even begun. While we don't have the details behind the process, how else do you explain the fact that no QLD clubs supported the concept and it had to be the QRU and Reds who backed the deal? It's not as if the club-level support is lacking - GPS juniors is one of the biggest clubs in the Southern Hemisphere and their premiers regularly get 3-5,000 crowds to home games. If a couple of the biggest clubs in each city had been offered the chance to have a "champions league" team in the NRC, it might have put a couple of noses out of joint, but it would have taken the already large supporter bases behind those clubs and turned the competition into something which might have rivalled a large NRL or AFL club. Instead, by trying to build from the top down and inventing some meaningless teams out of the aether, the ARU has once again shot itself in the foot and guaranteed failure. Rant [extra long] over.

Great idea!

Perth Spirit can use "Casper the friendly ghost" as their mascot.

The roar needs a 'like' button.

@Greg - Utah Jazz, Miami Heat are not Australian rugby teams. They are baseball or basketball teams (who knows?) and have nothing to do with Australian rugby so how are they relevant. Personally I think team names should be the place plus the sport eg Perth Rugby Club, Canberra Rugby Club. Works fine Collingwood FC. Sydney FC etc. Authenticity is important too. These names are as if marketers are trying to invent brands instead of sports teams. Just let the team live and and the supporters will give them a nickname if necessary. All Blacks, Springboks, Wallabies, Rabbitohs, Mooloo - these names evolved naturally and are authentic. Stars is not. But I also agree its a minor irritant in what is otherwise a huge positive step for rugby in Australia.And at least there is a geographic element in every name as opposed to the confusion that reigns over super rugby. 18 years later my wife still asks me where the Sharks are from. Cronulla is it? The Lions? Wellington. The Blues? NSW... you get the point.