WATCH: Nick Farr-Jones knows how to save rugby

Except what the independently reported attendances tell us... This isn't my information and opinion. This is reported fact. That's just his opinion.

Agree, Train Without a Station. What did he accumulate as the Chair of NSWRU? Revenues, participation and profile all decreased - he is a blame/critic. It's easy to point the finger and he is a big part of the legacy issues.

And regardless of what you say, you're full of crap. I'll take the the opinion of my Adelaide mate any day. He's written books on subjects in both cricket & football. He has a wide circle of associates. He knows what he's talking about.

@ TWAS "The broadcasting rights return less than the NZRU grant to run the Mitre 10 Cup teams. That is subsidization" You still don't get it. You seem to be trapped in an Australian rugby model and can't see out.

Not when you consider that to be $66M AUD and the ARU generates $57M in TV income without the same product, and that the NZRU likely generates slightly more income for Super Rugby and Test Rugby due to their stature and demand for their own games.

Until the GPS school comp plays at least 40 minute halves ( not 35 minutes , that is rubbish ) and have at least a 4 team semi final,quarter final then GRAND FINAL set up, instead of first past the post, Aussie rugby will always be behind the 8 ball.

I'm fairly sure the broadcast rights don't cover costs. The NZRU sold broadcast rights for the Mitre 10 Cup, Super Rugby & All Blacks tests for $70m a season and there is no way that Mitre 10 Cup generates 37% of that (ie, the $26m quoted by TWAS above).

The broadcasting rights return less than the NZRU grant to run the Mitre 10 Cup teams. That is subsidization.

@ Jerry Of course the NZ provinces get funding from the NZRU. The NZRU sells the broadcasting rights--the provinces, essentially, get a dividend from the NZRU. If the individual provinces were left to sink or swim and survive only on gate-takings, they'd all want to play on Saturday afternoon. The competition, from a broadcasting point of view, would be worthless. The only days without a Mitre 10 Cup game on TV at the moment are Monday and Tuesday. The viewer numbers for Mitre 10 Cup are excellent. As it stands, the provinces take a hit on gate takings but collect on the distribution from the NZRU. That is the business model. It works.

The provinces were too small. No single province is large enough to commercially support a Super Rugby team. The franchises represent a number of provinces - almost an amalgamation ("the action, process, or result of combining or uniting") for Super Rugby purposes. You're arguing over semantics, rather than any disagreement with the original point that Australian provinces were larger, more populated regions the right size for Super Rugby teams, but the NZ provinces were too small and under populated regions for the same thing, so they combined a few to create them.

@TWAS Your original statement: "NZ needed to create larger provinces for Super Rugby because there’s (sic) were too small individually.” Then this: "Yes they created franchises – which were amalgamations of the existing provinces, because those were not big enough." Modified again: "The Super franchises are separate entities which represent a number of provinces that are all stake holders." So there we have it: The provinces weren't "too small" and they were not "amalgamated". All you now need to do is admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah it's a smart move by the NZRU as they get plenty out of it, but they essentially pass on to the unions more more than it makes in TV revenue. The NZRU makes about $9M AUD more than the ARU from TV income for example. If we could do so I would advocate the same for the NRC and trying to pass on around $1M per team.

I think TWAS is right, the Mitre 10 Cup is effectively subsidised. It makes a profit, but only if you count the funds from NZ Rugby as revenue which is a fiction. It doesn't generate enough real revenue to sustain itself but the NZR views it as a crucial development path so it props it up.

The Super franchises are separate entities which represent a number of provinces that are all stake holders. As for finances, I suggest you look at the financial reports of each of the provinces and the All Blacks. The NZRU Annual Report for 2016 on Page 46 notes $26,738,000 in Mitre 10 Cup funding. Cherry picked? The 2nd biggest region in NZ averaged 3,000 for the 2016 season despite making finals. Crowd figures are not published for all matches so between the articles outlining concerns and the known figures this is all that's available.

@ Train Without A Station "Yes they created franchises – which were amalgamations of the existing provinces, because those were not big enough." What the hell does that mean? They were not amalgamations. The Super franchises are completely separate entities with their own management. The provinces in the designated catchment area for a Super rugby franchise have their own identity/management. "All Unions make a profit because the NZRU subsidizes them from All Black income." What? ??? They make a profit because they have been forced to keep a lid on costs. They haven't always made a profit; a few provinces have had management changes forced upon them to receive funding. "Yeah who needs the established, reported facts like Wellington’s attendances .." So you have based your homespun theory on a cherry-picked attendance stat? It's like arguing with a five-year-old.

Regardless of what your "mate" says, the facts say that Adelaide AFL supported is pretty evenly split between the 2, with a slight advantage going to the longer established team.

I've a mate who was born & lives in Adelaide confirm my point about Power & Crows. While there has been some leakage from other SANFL clubs to Power, most of their support base comes from the old PA Magpies. My counter argument was used to highlight the hollowness of your Vikings position. Sure, the NRC Vikings has coaches & players from other clubs, but it doesn't pretend to be representative of the entire ACT when it continues to use the nickname/mascot & colours of Tuggeranong. Only when the Canberra Kookaburras run out in their old blue, gold, black & white will the NRC team be fully representative of all ACT. Only people obsessed with seeing the NRC succeed at any cost would be blind to this contradiction of Vikings in both JIDC & NRC.. One of several reasons why the ARC failed in 2007 was because the Central Coast Rays was filled with North Harbour/Shore players. This satisfied neither the Central Coast nor Sydney's North Harbour/Shore's fans. Let's stop pretending the Vikings represents all of ACT, because it doesn't.

So basically you're saying the schools should do X, when there's nothing really in it for them? You're never going to force another party to just do what you think is best because you tell them they have to. You need to show them why it's in their own best interests.

Better coaching and facilities, or just because they recruit better talent? They perform a role similar to what the best NCAA schools do for the NFL and NBA. Funneling the best talent and putting them into programs that are close to the next level. Creates a higher level of competition, and helps prepare them for professional training environments.

Yes they created franchises - which were amalgamations of the existing provinces, because those were not big enough. Does referring to them as a franchise being a group of provinces, rather than a created Super Rugby province really change the point at all? They can sell the broadcast rights wherever they want, presently it has not been for as much as they grant the unions to run NPC. All Unions make a profit because the NZRU subsidizes them from All Black income. They do so because they consider it in the best interests of the All Blacks, much like supporting the NRC is in the best interests of the Wallabies.