With SANZAAR set to meet over the next couple of days in London to thrash out a restructure of the Super Rugby competition, let’s consider the hypothesis that there will be one less Australian franchise.
It’s worth contemplating because it’s entirely likely.
Feedback from fans says the 18-team, four-conference system is confusing and constipated – making it hard for administrators and broadcasters to deliver.
It’s pretty clear that five teams in Australia is unsustainable considering the financially precarious position of the majority of the clubs. Recent results on the field haven’t been up to scratch either.
If we tackle this task by deduction, let’s immediately rule out two teams: the Waratahs and Reds are shoo-ins to be retained – the two states are the lifeblood of Australian rugby. No further discussion needed.
The third candidate I’d eliminate is the Western Force.
They’ve been dismal at times on the field, failing to make the Super Rugby finals in their 11-year existence, and perhaps because of that they’ve struggled to stay on their own two feet financially.
However, any broadcast executive and sports marketing expert will tell you their location fits the television schedule nicely, with their Perth home games providing a perfect slot for TV audiences in South Africa and Europe.
Remember, the decisions made in London will be largely motivated by getting the broadcast deal right; that’s where the big bucks are that lay the base for Super Rugby’s viability and in turn provide the biggest drawcard to stop the player drain to Europe and Japan.
Perth is a city of 1.8 million and the Force’s battle with two AFL teams for the hearts and minds of sports fans is formidable but not overwhelming.
Which leaves the Brumbies in Canberra and the Melbourne Rebels.
My proposition is for the ARU not to sharpen the knives to give one of them the chop, but instead get out the welding torch.
Why not a Super Rugby joint venture?
Should we act in the spirit of Federation, when Canberra was chosen as Australia’s capital as a geographical compromise roughly halfway between Sydney and Melbourne?
I make Albury the halfway point between Canberra and Melbourne. The Albury Steamers Rugby Club seem to be well established and they call their home ground Murrayfield.
Alright that’s not going to work; let’s move on.
I’d suggest Canberra being the dominant partner in the new joint venture, with three of their eight home games to be played in Melbourne.
Canberra’s upside is that it’s a proven rugby-loving city with a population of 395,000. That’s significantly more than the successful New Zealand franchises of the Highlanders, based in Dunedin, and the Chiefs based in Hamilton. The key difference is those Kiwi teams effectively have a free hit with fans, while the Brumbies face stiff competition with the Canberra Raiders in the NRL.
Nonetheless, Canberra has proven when the Brumbies are going well they can fill the 25,000 capacity of GIO Stadium.
Canberra have bolted-on rugby union fans and that makes them a precious commodity. South Sydney’s eviction from the NRL in 2000 and 2001 proved it’s highly fraught to alienate diehard fans, or you run the risk that they’ll be lost to the game. The ARU wouldn’t be keen to rip the Brumbies out of Canberra, despite their financial strains of recent years.
Twice champions and four-times runners-up, the Brumbies also have an enviable Super Rugby record, and the ACT has produced a steady flow of classy Wallabies such as current Brumbies coach Stephen Larkham, 139-Test George Gregan, Joe Roff and Matt Giteau.
The downside of Canberra is that the money men don’t view them as lucrative enough to advertisers and broadcasters. Melbourne’s population of 4.35 million is the reason those same parties are so keen for rugby to make a dent in the Victorian market.
The reasons for potentially not persisting with the Rebels as a sole entity in Melbourne are well known – the AFL-infatuated city with eight teams has had six seasons to prove they’re worth sticking with, and haven’t delivered.
And the Storm have shown that NRL premierships don’t necessarily translate into adoration from Melburnians. The Mexicans are tough nuts to crack.
Would a three-match stadium deal in Melbourne be worthwhile? Surely the ARU wouldn’t want to let go of any foothold they’ve laid down in Melbourne; they’ve got an academy established and a decent following. Maybe those fans’ interest would fade if the Rebels didn’t remain full-time.
Are joint ventures too poisonous? Or can it work as a compromise and worth the punt?
kingcowboy
Guest
Hey TWAS, where have you been? I enjoy reading your comments!
wyn
Guest
Would hate the Rebels to be cut, but hey if they get belted by 50+ per game who wants to sit through that as a supporter. JV between Brumbies - Rebels would be better than losing Rebels altogether. How about a merger with a 6th NZ team with NZ players eligible for AB's (and getting a Kiwi coach). The main base of rugby supporters in Melbourne are Kiwi's, you just need to go to the cross Tasman matches.
sheek
Roar Guru
TWAS, It is wrong to think I don't consider revenue important. Of course it is. However, it is not the only measure by which you can judge success or improvement of a code. It would be helpful I think, if rugby balanced revenue with some long-term sustainable plans & structures. At present the perception is that everything revolves around the five year broadcasting cycle. This is not healthy.
Sam
Guest
4 home games in Canberra v Red and v Tahs, and 4 in Melb v Force and NZ teams. Team could be a non geographically specific name like NZ franchise.
Sam
Guest
Having Beale and O'Connor in the same backline is like trying to fit Tony Locket, Jason Dunstall and Gary Ablett into the Victorian State of Origin team. Rebels backline last year of Naivalu, Inman, Ellison Shipperley and Harris is more reliable than any with O'Connor and Beale in it.
Sam
Guest
I'm a Rebels fan and it makes sense. I'd support a joint venture like this if it could be done well. In fact a feeder like system with the Melbourne Rising and the Canberra Vikings feeding a SR side representing a like multiple unions feeding an NZ franchise makes perfect sense.
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
Wow
Sammy Salsa
Guest
"Do they really have one of the historically best programs?" Yes TWAS they do have the best rugby program in the county. If you're not a schoolboy boy star and get signed to NSW or QLD you can come to Canberra and become a Wallaby. I'm not saying that Canberra produces the most rugby talent (although it does ok) I'm saying the Brumbies program turns fringe NSW and QLD players into Wallabies. In 2012 the Brumbies started the season with 1 starting Wallaby, by 2014 they had 14 on the run on side. The Brumbies franchise has consistantly shown itself to be the most professional and driven franchise in Australia by an arm and a leg. And if talking finances, there's only one franchise that has not been bailed out by the ARU to date... You guessed it. "if the Brumbies has some wonderful program they wouldn’t have had poor years over time. But they have." The Brumbies have finished outside the top 6, 5 times in 21 years (only bested by the Crusaders, 4 times) as opposed to the Reds 12 times and NSW 9 times in the same period, while the Rebels and Force have never made the top 6. Considering that most Brumbies players are "overflow" from NSW and QLD would you not agree that this would indicate the Brumbies have a superior program that breads success while NSW and QLD continually get first bite of the cherry but cant seem to produce continued high results?
Wombat
Guest
So cut Australias most successful Super rugby side?? That's a joke And I'm a Tahs fan?
Bring Back...?
Guest
Add to that - an analogous competition run across so many time zones? Super rugby has done well to "survive" this long, but its time has come. Sth Africa are better off linking up with the north whilst a Pacific tournament is possible for Aust, NZ and Japan - where there is lots of $$$$.
James P
Guest
I think the Brumbies were part of the problem. They were dumped in the same situation as the Force an Rebels but were successful. Obviously the Force and the Rebels haven't been successful in the same way. Both teams keep on losing many of their better players to the other teams. At the end of the 2013 season, the Rebels lost both Phipps and Beale to the Waratahs (who somehow fit them under the salary cap), as well as James O'Connor and Cooper Vuna - that's more than half of a pretty solid backline. The Force have just lost Godwin to the Brumbies. More support from the ARU would have been nice at certain points - the loss of someone like Jason Woodward for the Rebels was massive. He has now gone off to Bristol after coming to the realisation that he wasn't going to make the All Blacks and is immediately eligible for England.
Unanimous
Guest
Most (almost all) cross border leagues have consistent equalisation measures throughout their league.
andrewM
Guest
I think that would work nicely with the NRC. Limit the top division to 8 teams and 8 in the second. Give SA, Tas, NT something to aim for.
Bob
Guest
Differance between the AFL/NRL and the ARU, is that the formers has realised that been an expansion team is bloody hard and helped the out with they where starting with Draft picks/Salary Caps, where as the force and the rebels are expected to develop there own talent in a non rugby state, (a few years ago Perth for example has less then 10 teams in their colts comp,) and get the dreggs of who NSW QLD didnt give a contract too. How on earth where they meant to be successful with out the help from the ARU?
James P
Guest
I assume you are talking about the argument of reducing the number of teams resulting in an improvement in the quality of the players in the team (with no or minimal additional spend as revenue will drop by roughly 20%). Sometimes players are driven by more than just cash (eg Beale) and sometimes they stick around for playing for Australia. But for those players on the fringes (eg someone like Luke Jones) who don't really seem to get the opportunities to play at a higher level it is hard for anyone to consider that they wouldn't just take the money. So we need more money in the local game. I've been a big fan of having some super rugby on FTA but it is like to be revenue negative in the short term and I'm not sure that is really going to work for Australian Rugby. If the solution was easy then everything would have been solved by now.
joe b
Guest
I suggested something slightly different above, but same kind of vein.... but I like your suggestion better. I reckon send the kids to the grand parents and belt out the article. Just a thought... where the ARU fails to grow interest in the game is in FTA availability... and your proposal could work a treat for both FTA and Foxtel broadcasts. The first conference round component could be simulcast on FTA and Foxtel, and the Finals series (plates, cups, trophies etal) could be exclusive to Foxtel.
joe b
Guest
How about just play a couple of Brumbies games in Western Sydney? similar to GWS Giants playing home games in two places. Keep all 5 teams, and have brumbies encompass both Canberra and Western Sydney... a slight rebadging perhaps.... Western Brumbies? At least diehard Brumbies fans can travel up/down the road to see them play in either place. Killing/Relocating the Force will destroy all the good development structures already in place. All the infrastructure and support will most likely go to an expansion hungry NRL. But most of all.... get rid of the current format. Perhaps have individual country conferences, play each other twice, and have a finals series....then the top 2 of each conference play each other once for an EPL style victor (i.e. no finals series).
Big Steve
Guest
But would they vote for it if the other option was for them to be cut?
joe b
Guest
ARU HQ seems to be an old boys network that loves the gravy train more than the code.
AndyS
Guest
So I assume that means the NSWRU would be splitting all their development and community funding with RugbyWA then, if RWA are assuming their responsibilities...?