Wessels slams talk of Rebels axing

I was talking about pre-COVID 19 crowds.

:laughing: not necessarily. A product he may like could mean that the wallabies would play even worse or cease to exist and he doesn't mind it while I do, that's the point.

I don’t care about high performance either but I do care about the wallabies ???? Just as well then

Lol Jacko doesn't get it so it must be dumb. Yes there's such thing as over competitiveness. I don't want less competitive games. I like Australian SR just fine :silly:

Despite axing the Force RA is still on the edge of bankruptcy. So follow your logic, four teams is better than none, didn’t work still bankrupt, cut a another....now three teams is better than none, still didn’t work, cut another..... now two teams are better than none, didn’t work still bankrupt cut another.....one team better than none, didn’t work still bankrupt, cut another....zero teams better than none? Wessels is correct, Rugby Australia is trying to solve the wrong problem and is asking the wrong questions and come up with these dumb answers like axing teams.

Sydney and Brisbane can do what ever they want as long as Perth, Melbourne and Canberra are also represented.

That’s certainly what brings lasting success at all levels

Not enough people. France and England have much bigger rugby populations and much bigger general populations. They bought all the best players and have lost hundreds of millions of euros. Perhaps they're learning that paying for foreign players is all well and good until someone else offers more. Perhaps they'll figure out that they'd have a stronger, more dedicated fan base if they brought local players through? Also why do people keep mentioning the highly overrated Itoje? Who cares where he plays?

Jacko, the NZ games are not physically sustainable from all accounts. This works, maybe, when there are no tests to worry about but the RC is coming to NZ this year so it's perhaps a good thing that the Super NZ competition finishes earlier than Australia's. Players will need a break!

You know, I agree. Your comment reminded me that soccer is the most popular game mostly because of familiarity and accessibility. The game itself is quite boring, especially of late. Thanks for your story.

Rugby needs to attract BETTER National Media coverage. A national competition that the Australian media would feel obligated to report on and the Australian population compelled to follow is the right vehicle to deliver this. It doesn't have to be the biggest or the longest or even the best competition in the world, Foxtel has other rugby product to supplement it's content but it does have to be engaging and entertaining and must therefore be competitive. It's structure should reflect the footprint of Rugby in this country and balanced accordingly but should be aspirational in doing so. It cannot afford to ignore significant population centres like Melbourne and Perth. Bearing this in mind I suggest a national competition with one team each in the major regional centres of Sydney and Brisbane with a minimum of two teams. Any more than three teams in Sydney or Brisbane would significantly dilute player talent and public interest. Teams would be vetted and selected based on their financial sustainability and their potential for future development. The competition would or should consist of no more than eight team's initially and balanced by a series of centralised contracts and drafts. Such a competition is forward looking but recognises also that it cannot afford to ignore the Rugby heartland. It does not seek to impose itself on the Rugby calendar but augment it. A National Competition played for instance over an eight week period and broadcast at least in part on "free to air" would be not only sustainable but highly marketable and a damn sight more interesting for most people than watching one sided Super Rugby games at 3:00 am or that no man's land time zone for games out of New Zealand, 5:30pm.

And while Rugby shrunk its oz fooprint to support a outdated cross border super rugby competition that does not support the free flow of players within that competition and against teams in silly timezone no one cares for - AFL and NRL have expanded its domestic footprint and hence content readily accessible and available. Have less oz pro domestic teams in a trans tasman competition only serves NZ rugby fans and the small minority of oz rusted on rugby fans that watch any rugby - not the majority of oz sports fans who only want to watch games with locally based teams involved.

Crowds are restricted due to covid.

It's only draft findings with the final report due later this year. NZ Rugby continued to stress all options were open even if they didn't outline those options (open remember?) All RA had to do was politely tell the NZ Rugby that their stated goal is 5 teams or nothing and leave it at that. There was no need for the RA CEO and chairman, and NSW chairman, to attack the NZ Rugby in the manner they did. I hope Hamish McLennan is not hopeful of hosting a couple of Bledisloe Cups before the RC kicks off if this behaviour continues.

but NZ teams are overly competitive for my liking. You want less competitive games? What a dumb statement!!!

Why do a lot of people always say 2 teams when 4 teams is just as accurate? I guess its said with a "Dramatic Pause" as well for further effect...

Not enough people. France and England have much bigger rugby populations and much bigger general populations. They bought all the best players and have lost hundreds of millions of euros. English clubs £70 mil last year alone, and the year before that. How can Australia hope to outbid them, convince itoje to give up international rugby, and make a profit? Sport is tribal. Most sports fans in Australia belong to another tribe. Some of the stuff coming out is either misleading or deluded.

I'm with you on the GRR.

Guess: I grew up playing rugby league in Brisbane. I'd never seen a game of Union until I was 36 years old. League was on the radio, on TV and at Lang Park. Union was a game played by amateurs, particularly boys at private schools. In country Victoria, where I live now, most people I talk to other than those of Pasifica background think that the Storm play Rugby - don't know the difference between the 2 codes. I have a brother who is a League fan, having played in the bush til age 35, but having also played Union at QUT. He ridicules union now. Union is in competition with League for players, and for bums on seats at games. The potential fans who make the difference between a mass sport and a boutique sport follow the game with the big media presence. Obviously people are entitled to their own preferences, but the big problem is that Union is largely invisible. I do think that union has a lot of ground to make up in terms of community outreach and and selling the game if Union wants to survive alongside League in the Australian market.

I agree with Wessels but he should worry about coaching and pass these sorts of questions onto the Rebels CEO to answer.