The future Super Rugby picture became a little clearer over the weekend, with South Africa confirming that the Cheetahs and the Southern Kings will be the two teams withdrawn from the competition for 2018.
With the Cheetahs and Kings now free to “explore other international competition opportunities”, the South African Rugby Union is almost certainly playing a long-threatened card to head north.
That the Celtic-Italian Pro12 league will accept the southerners now feels about as done as deals get prior to formal announcement. The talk has been heading this way for the last few weeks, and the sudden postponement over the weekend of season launches by existing Pro12 teams only strengthens the ‘worst kept secret’ status of the imminent expansion of that competition.
Whether more teams from the Republic follow the lead of the Cheetahs and Kings remains to be seen, but it would certainly be fair to assume all four remaining Super Rugby sides will be keeping a very close eye on the transition of their compatriots. And the interest is evidently there, with suggestions over the weekend that both the Lions and Bulls could be interested in exiting Super Rugby if Australia can’t shed its one agreed team.
To their great credit, the SARU have played a very clever game in holding up their end of the bargain. It’s hard to imagine that Cheetahs boss Harold Vorster just called up Pro12 CEO Martin Anayi one day last week and casually inquired about playing alongside teams from Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy. Clearly, the SARU and Pro12 decision makers have been contemplating this move for some time.
Contrast SARU’s rational planning of their country’s professional rugby future with that of the ARU.
The only certainty we have currently is that the Western Force and ARU will commence arbitration discussions on July 31. That’s still more than three weeks away, and by then both the Melbourne Rebels and the Force will have finished their 2017 campaign unsure of whether they have a 2018 pre-season to start planning for.
The Rebels, for their part, steadfastly remain silent and with their hands over their ears.
But assuming for the purposes of this column that the ARU get everything back under control and do dissolve one team for next year – it doesn’t matter which one – what is the way forward for Australian rugby beyond 2018?
Once all the 2018 contracts are taken care of, how will the estimated savings from Australia’s share of the SANZAAR revenue be used to improve the game?
It’s all fine and good to say that cutting a team will reduce costs, but what is the plan for those savings?
Is it around strengthening participation numbers in the region that is about to lose its Super Rugby presence? Is it around boosting junior participation numbers nationally?
Is it around the promotion of the game from the ground up? Will it be used to expand the TryRugby program nationally, with a firm view toward getting the program into more schools? Is it around improving infrastructure across the country at junior and senior level?
(AAP Image/Joe Castro)
It could be any of these; it could be none of them. The point in listing them is that something needs to be tabled and outlined, so that we can actually see some fruit of what has been the worst year for Australian rugby in recent memory.
And my genuine fear if the ARU does manage to cull a side is that these savings won’t really be savings at all.
If there’s been one element of consistency within Australian rugby circles since the game went professional, it’s that with even the slightest sniff of surplus money, hands fly out from everywhere.
Super Rugby franchises, Wallabies expenses, state union bailouts, club rugby competitions, club rugby competitions who signed up for broadcast deals they couldn’t afford… the list is endless.
But the question Australian rugby really needs to ask itself is this: do you really want to change?
Arguably, this is the most important question the game faces currently. Get it right, and make the right plans, and the game can recover. Change nothing, and blow the money saved from axing the fifth Super side, and well… the game gets what it deserves.
And this is what scares me the most about what the ARU is trying to achieve. I’m not sure any desire to change exists at any level.
If it did, Waratahs coach Darryl Gibson wouldn’t have to be defending his position like pretty much every one of his doomed predecessors bar Michael Cheika had to do, and despite a horridly underperforming playing group.
If it did, we’d recognise performance and ensure the pathways are not just lip-service, whereby the national schoolboy champions can go through a tournament undefeated but have just two players earn national selection.
If it did, Super Rugby squads wouldn’t be all but finalised for the following season before the NRC even kicks off.
What really worries me about the game in Australia right now is that dropping a Super Rugby team is seen as the panacea for all ills. The team will be dropped, boxes will be ticked, everything will be rosy. Crisis over.
But if nothing changes within the administration of the game at all levels, in the coaching, the promotion, and in the pathways, what will have been achieved at all?
If the game doesn’t want to change, the revolution will have been pointless.
nerval
Guest
Line-outs, scrums and and rucks are not "nuances" - they're all areas of the game that were once in rugby league but have long since been rejected. That's a choice they have made. Those "nuances" and "subtleties" are nothing of the sort. And there's nothing complex happening in the brain when watching from afar! They're re-starts - and, moreover, ones where referees are called into play far more intensely than the player or viewer's brain cells. What's so intellectually demanding about them? What's so complex?
ScottD
Roar Guru
Absolutely true since the ARU announced a approx $5m profit in 2016
ScottD
Roar Guru
No but many do employ media support personnel to "manage" the media This include background briefings for reporters and responding to articles in news that may be unfavourable
Midfielder
Guest
Thanks CS, TWAS has a excellent grasp of the financials.... whats missing as I see it as an outsider is if you don't get your systems & structures right then you will continue to bleed money. Fundamentally rugby has a structural problem and is very much driven from a top down approach. rugby is my second code but I still have a very soft spot for it ... but have been arguing the same thing for years and it became pointless to keep rehashing the same thing. The benefits of having faith in your game and trusting the rugby community to collective make decent calls is lacking ... more its senior management around the country circling the wagons around a smaller and smaller empire.
clipper
Guest
Agree mostly, Midfielder. Rugby had a great chance to make moves in Western Sydney, especially in the early 2000's and should've seen there was a gap in the market with the growing PI population. Instead they sat on their hands and kept the private school mode. Today WSW have proved it was a fertile ground to mine and have had great success. GWS, while not exactly setting the world on fire, have set up a long term plan and will have curtailed Rugby growth out there as they are both middle class games in Sydney.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Well it is my opinion. Line outs, Scrums, Rucks, tactical kicking. All nuances that we see little or none of in league. Some of my best friends are league fans .... ;) . and one their major criticisms is that the rules are too complex and the Ref's have way too much involvement. It is that sort of subtlety and complexity that differentiates a fine wine from passion pop.
concerned supporter
Guest
Very well put, Middie. Good to see you back posting on the Rugby site. Soccer (Football) in Australia has been through the good & bad times There are so many Rugby Stalwarts and Followers who are in positions in Australia who would back a P.E.P (Private Equity Partners) set up in a revamped ARU. Your mate Nemesis had a sensible proposal for soccer a few months ago,Rugby should read his proposal. But I think the majority of the ARU board don't want change. ARU Director looks good for their CV.
Midfielder
Guest
TWAS Let me try and explain my thoughts in a better way... by being more inclusive and developing a governance systems and from there better and smarter systems and looking to move to a more FIFA model.... Football will reap big nay huge nay mega benefits which I will outline below. Rugby you will rightly point out not be able to copy what Football is going to do.... however that not to say there are not many untried benefits out their if Rugby's current structures are opened up. Yes if will need a whole of Rugby change not just the ARU ... but what I find sad is many in Rugby simply see costing the existing systems . In Football, I’m probably more looking forward to the 2018/19 A-League season than the 2017/18. We’ll have a National 2nd Division and 12 teams in ALeague. Today, Woolongong Wolves appointed Geoff Lord – the man who was crucial in establishing Melbourne Victory – as an advisor for their ALeague bid. Full story: http://outside90.com/wollongong-wolves-appoint-melbourne-victory-founder-as-a-league-bid-advisor-121/ I reckon we have around 6-8 groups who are going to make a meaningful bid to join ALeague in 2018/19, plus around 20-30 NPL clubs who want to move from their State Comps to a National Comp. And, if the ALeague moves to an independent structure, you can expect big money to flow in from foreign investors. Red Bull are all set up & ready to pounce. Essentially we have trust in our game... so should Rugby folk...
KCR
Guest
Top league, and run a team in Singapore 10s if I'm thinking outside of the box.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Same here.
concerned supporter
Guest
Rah Rah, Glad you agree that TWAS is arrogant, I have known that for well over a year. He gives no solutions, he is the master of deceptive and misleading comments. He is continually in defence of the ARU.He asks impossible questions of posters in order to side track and cover up the inept and fumbling ARU. He belittles other posters, eg Jock Cornet and others who stand up to him. How does he find the time to monitor and post to the Roar?
John R
Roar Guru
What's your issue with NRC? Is it because it doesn't have any history? Everything has to start somewhere.
John R
Roar Guru
Might as well start throwing Shute Shield etc into the Sydney argument as well, if you're going to bring WAFL into it CH.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
How did you know it was even on then?
mania
Guest
scottD - dont be fooled by the ABs turning up, tho the force players appearing is just as valuable, more so for the goodwill of the Force. the real standard is getting the volunteers and parents out there to keep grassroots alive. they are the real secret to NZ success. ABs turning up is just the icing on the cake
Hannes
Guest
Me and my family too.
Midfielder
Guest
TWAS have sent a reply is with the mods ..
Midfielder
Guest
TWAS It was not my intention to have a go at you personally rather to use your reasoning for supporting ARU decisions which I assume have the support of the State Unions. Football made a major tactical error way way back in 1955 when ethnic teams kinda took over from district teams. Finally ineptitude, incompetence and corruption along with inward looking tribes of self interest brought the whole thing down. Frank Lowy stepped in an assumed dictatorial control and in the first few years he enjoyed near total support... however success can sometimes led to others wanting to get involved. Today Football has had tabled 16 standing bids to join the A-League, additionally over 100 clubs in a competition called the National Premier League a kinda of second tier competition. Add an FFA Cup with over 850 + clubs competing. Lowy does not want to lessen the controls and power FFA have ... most others want the decisions made about where the game is heading controlled by more than essentially one family [however successful]. More importantly in the discussions is everyone agrees on what the Football community wants ... its just different groups have different models of achieving it.. FFA refused to talk or offered changes that where not acceptable to the broader Football community... so the Football community rose and demanded change and invited FIFA in ... FIFA have said to the Lowy's you can't keep that level of control for ever... Football is a bottom up pyramid world over and thats what you need to install. We accept we don't have the revenue to come anywhere close to implementing a full FIFA model as opposed to the current franchise / licence model ... but we will develop structures and programs to introduce the full FIFA model most are saying within 10 to 12 years. I have posted the above summary to highlight the difference in thinking... as I said Football folk have said lets get the model / structures / that led to better pathways more people playing and a nation wide system. Once having developed these in planning stages over say the next 3 to 4 years then slowly and when affordable introduce the new structures. Whereas Rugby thinking across different levels of management, is to use revenue to, support existing structures and after determining revenue then see what can be afforded.
Unanimous
Guest
No. The Rebels and Force both had good crowds initially. The initial sell was fine. SR failed to provide an equalisation measure that enabled expansion teams to succeed on the field sometimes and retain good crowds. Most people will watch a loosing team that has never had past success for only so long - a few years typically. Once they realise the comp is skewed, they will watch something else that isn't. Everyone in Australia sees well run comps all over the place - BBL, AFL, A-League, NRL, NBL, netball. Everyone in Australia except rugby insiders knows SR is a dud comp. The way the expansion was done skewed the comp, and SANZAAR continues to ignore the standard fixes for that followed by all other comps in Australia. All growth and contraction in a market occurs via marginal people - people who have competing other interests. Those people in all of Australia, not just in the expansion areas, have seen the rugby expansion, and compare it to other sports expansions they have experienced and they see rugby as poorly run, and a dud ptoduct. Cutting a team adds to that belief. Cutting a team is close to suicidal from a marketing point of view in this situation. Only rugby insiders who look at what they can do with concentrating talent and saved costs fail to see the damage of the negative PR, and the reinforcement it gives the current negative narrative.
ScottD
Guest
Mmm well I don't know about that mate the ARU has pumped $13.8 m into the Rebels to date and no result whereas they've pumped less than a 3rd of that into Force And WA has the largest player group outside NSW and QLd so looks like they got that decision right