Poaching NZ coaches won't solve the Wallabies' woes - the real solution is a lot less sexy

Look, it's hard to argue with most of that. I don't know what the answer is. For me, I take my kids to watch the Wanderers a few times a year because I can drive there in 10 mins, park for free within walking distance, the games are usually late afternoon and I never know who will win. So my kids love soccer, even though the A League is not a super high quality competition, relatively speaking. If rugby could offer me a similar package then I would take them to watch that as well and maybe they would be rugby fans. But for me, rugby in Sydney requires an hour + on public transport followed by a walk up a steep hill to watch a game at 8PM where the result is as often as not a foregone conclusion (in a bad way). Then we get to spend 90 mins or so getting home, at 11PM. My kids don't even watch on TV because most of the Waratahs games are at night and they're in bed. Like I said, I don't know what the answer is. I do know that keeping on doing what we've been doing for the last 20 years will be the end of professional rugby in this country.

You don't like the tone of this exchange. Neither do I. Here are some unprovoked quotes from you. "I’ve picked apart (now on two occasions) the flaw" "I can’t help you if that’s still going in one and out the other." "I’ll be very explicit so there’s no chance of it escaping you." "What a great insight into the level you’re operating at, and this is the problem with these back-and-fourths with you- every detail including the bleeding obvious needs to be spoon fed and even then it’s hit and miss as to whether the most basic principles are digested." That's the tone you set Rob, not me - you can hardly blame me for responding. I've managed to have who knows how many respectful differences of opinion with lots of people on The Roar without anybody feeling the need to indulge in demeaning sneers like these. I believe that I understood you the first time but you didn't address my whole argument, then when you did address everything much of the reasoning you offered was badly flawed. You obviously disagree which is fine but all the unpleasantness isn't. Finally, it's often wise to finish a discussion by agreeing to disagree, but the offer is hollow when it's accompanied by condescention. If you really want to end a discussion you need to be much more neutral in tone.

Your first two paragraphs are telling; No, I didn’t say that Darwin is dishonest. I said his work is selective in the data it presents as proof to build the cohesion narrative (not the first business to build a message to take to market for the purpose selling a range of corporate services). This isn’t an uncommon response to the weight his work places on time individuals in teams spend together and believe it or not, there are other evidence-based theories from ‘internationally respected’ (actual) academics that prioritise other ingredients for building successful teams. Darwin himself is quite open about challenging these and it's not exactly a left field position to arrive at the conclusion that GLA pushes the examples that support their hypothesis while breezing over an endless amount of data that doesn't. Then your absurd suggestion that I’m contradicting myself when I drop what should be a fairly obvious statement about the need to invest in any new direction for professional rugby. To keep this up we would then need to go down yet another rabbit warren to establish a baseline understanding that rugby in Australia is effectively at rock bottom and bleeding money under existing conditions. There is no momentum or position of strength to launch from. Regardless of the direction, including shrinking down to three teams- further losses can be expected, such is the dire state of the game. What a great insight into the level you’re operating at, and this is the problem with these back-and-fourths with you- every detail including the bleeding obvious needs to be spoon fed and even then it’s hit and miss as to whether the most basic principles are digested. My thoughts on domestic rugby and why I believe it can be not only self-sustainable, but profitable go so much further than simply maintaining 5 Australian teams and establishing conditions for free player movement across all entities within the competition. As well as tinkering with professional competition structures and other profitable value add concepts, work at each level of the game from grassroots to test rugby is required as well as establishing alignment between each layer of the pyramid. I appreciate you don’t have all that detail and to be quite frank, as well as it not really being for the comment section of an article on the roar, I couldn’t be bothered wasting any further time giving it to you given the tone and success of this exchange among a line of others in a similar vein. There are logical responses to your counters on professional contracts for Australian players and windows of engagement success for Australian Super teams- but I just can’t be bother anymore. How about you do both of us a favour and avoid replying to comments of mine on here. Agree to disagree comes to mind and by now, I’m well aware of your difference of opinion and I’m pretty content not exploring that further with you.

So your only response to the evidence-based cohesion argument is to bring up suspicion that the internationally respected Darwin has made money through dishonesty. You’re going to have to provide pretty good evidence to back that one up. Fewer teams make better teams at that level and above. You say that you don’t want to spend more on pro clubs (then contradict yourself - “some investment”) but you’re already spending too much, as the Rebels and Tahs debts prove. As a consequence of your overspending, your spending on community rugby is so much lower as a percentage of income than the AFL, NRL, other unions and your own history which means that you’ve given yourself a huge needless disadvantage against just about everyone. A huge own goal. So for all your paragraphs stating the obvious that times have changed, you’ve still not succeeded in rebutting either the too much spending or the fewer teams make better teams arguments that apply right now. My contact is in the Sydney GPS system who’s constantly frustrated by the pursuit of so many league kids for the short term glory of some of the schools. I’ve heard the same message from others on numerous occasions and never seen anyone challenge them on it. Good that in your part of the pyramid it’s not such a problem but if Australia is to progress it needs to be producing not just the wallaby level talent you see but more players who are likely to be good enough to become top All Blacks and Boks and enough coaches who are good enough to get them there. Of course that’s become much more difficult because of the high expenditure on pro rugby and low expenditure on community rugby has led to a huge reduction in player numbers. You complain about the lack of opportunities for young Australian players but has it not occurred to you that even your plan for open eligibility within SR with no extra teams would result in a lot more kiwis taking Aussie jobs than vice versa? Fewer jobs for Australian youngsters with if anything worse cohesion. As for your “proof” that Australia will (present or future tense) watch pro club rugby in big numbers, a venture capitalist would laugh you out of the room. Did you even properly consider what I wrote on this? Sure the Brumbies had good crowds 2008-14 but now their results are much better than during most of that period and their attendances are much worse. That is conclusive proof that what happened 2014 and earlier is not a useful predictor of what will happen in the future. If it were, the Brumbies’ superior results now would be resulting in superior not vastly inferior crowds. Could anything be more obvious? All of your examples after 2014 are a maximum of three years then kaput. You can’t build a sustainable comp on that sort of flash in the pan basis. Your contention that a different comp would draw in the crowds is pure speculation, and NZR is never going to jeopardise the proven sustainable success of the biggest brand in rugby on that sort of wishful thinking.

JD Kiwi, I did properly address it and now I’ll be very explicit so there’s no chance of it escaping you. Firstly, I’m not suggesting for one second that professional rugby for both Australia and NZ operate as an ‘expensive’ entity on each Unions respective balance sheet. It’s going to take strategic change and even some investment to begin with, but the goal is that professional rugby generates significant revenue for the game as opposed to operating as a liability. I’ll return to the historical engagement data shortly, but that’s one marker that suggests that there is the opportunity to achieve that goal (profitable professional rugby) under strategically structured conditions that are calibrated for achieving strong fan engagement. And the game was still far from tailored for strong Australian fan engagement when those strong results were recorded. Returning to the landscape that you erroneously believe was the root cause of Australia’s success to give you the explicit detail as to why those conditions were vastly different to the current day. The first thing to acknowledge here is that as rugby was in the very early days of emerging from its amateur cocoon, it was given the absolute free kick in its heartland known as ‘the Super League war’. So as rugby was establishing its professional identity with a safe (as it should have been) three team offering in Australia, the main competitor was in a state of absolute disarray. Once the dust from a period of great turmoil across rugby league began to settle and the NRL was established in the late 90’s, it did so from a low base. While it had a strong domestic presence going for it (which is what it went on to achieve its position of dominance from), the salary cap was only just over $3m per squad and it took a decade and a half for it to punch above $5m which is where Australia’s Super cap has floated around for most of this century. Reflecting that salary cap growth is the broadcast deals which have grown from $100m per year in 2007 to now be worth four times that amount. While the AFL didn’t have an internal war to contend with, it has grown from a similar base in the 90’s where these codes were effectively administered at a level not far beyond park football, to become multi-billion dollar behemoths that have an endless amount of resources and attention attached to them. Then there’s the fact that the rugby landscapes around the globe have shifted to have a challenging influence on our local footprint. Super Rugby (with help from News) got the jump on the northern hemisphere which took more time to emerge from its amateur ideals. Since then the Top 14 broadcast revenue has trebled in size from $60m in the mid naughties to now over $180m and Japan has gone from nothing to become a major player and influencer within rugby’s global environment. The emergence in strength of international rugby entities certainly has a detrimental impact on our local player market- for both established and emerging talent. Meanwhile, the surging strength of our local competitors have made the fight for attention particularly challenging and this unfavourably impacts rugby’s player production line with fewer kids having an interest in the game and those athletically talented kids being more inspired by what those well-resourced competitors have to offer. JD Kiwi, I’d be interested to know what your exposure to Australian rugby’s player development pathway is to make the statement ‘many are from a league background and it’s no surprise that they mainly end up back in league’. As someone that’s coaching within a representative schoolboy rugby pathway currently and for the last decade, I can tell you that group you’ve outlined couldn’t be quantified as ‘many’. ‘Many’ are legitimate rugby products that become disillusioned (at various stages) with the pathway opportunities and what rugby’s elite product has to offer. ‘Many’ grow up playing both games from a young age and if you’re a handy rugby player that’s showing some promise, why wouldn’t you hedge your bets and aspire towards an elite 17-team competition that’s everywhere you look, not to mention played by a lot of your peers on the weekend. Some are league players that were offered scholarships to (or planted by NRL clubs within) rugby-playing private schools. I’ve seen infinitely more young players with rugby talent that fall into the first two categories compared to the latter one. I am very aware of Gainline Analytics work and I’m equally aware of the critics response that it involves cherry-picking evidence to build a unique narrative that’s been packaged for commercial gain. ‘Aussies haven’t proved that they will watch pro club rugby in big numbers’- is the quote that the introduction of that engagement data was in response to. Do you understand that it was introduced as actual proof that Aussies will watch pro club rugby in big numbers to counter your ill-informed suggestion that they won’t. And as spelt out initially, the examples aren’t ‘flash in the pan’ at all. What was put forward was not a string of games or even one fruitful season (eg a small positive sample). The smallest examples were windows of at least 3 consecutive seasons of sustained successful engagement (hardly ‘flash in the pan) that still represents a benchmark for global domestic rugby and is comparable (albeit over a smaller footprint) with our other local code. Sure, nothing is certain and there’s always a risk that the horse has bolted and those levels are now beyond reach. But those previous results were achieved under a structure that was still well short of something that could be classified as conducive to the needs of the Australian market. If the goal in establishing a domestic product is achieving strong engagement at that level as opposed to transferring it to another tier as has been the case for previous Super iterations, there’s every reason to think it can be sustainably successful. The Reds and Tahs drawing crowds back in the mid-20’s, the Force and Brumbies in the high teens and the Rebels in the mid teens (all conservative benchmarks) isn’t exactly a stretch. It’s very attainable with an exciting and engaging product that’s supported by a meaningful international calendar and some additional layers that represent a wider plan for growing domestic fan engagement. Furthermore, with broadcast data reflecting those crowds, it wouldn’t be the ‘expensive’ lag on Union resources that you seem to believe rugby in this corner of the globe can’t move beyond. If that is in fact the case, it might as well be tools down and just walk away now. One thing that is for certain is that shrinking the pathways for fans and players to engage in the game is just submitting to the competition (not that 5 teams is attempting to go toe-to-to with it) and the cloud of invisibility just gets denser around the game for detrimental results. Your quote ‘nothing that your plan to have current All Blacks playing for Aussie teams would fix’ fails to capture the intent of the actual plan that you’re commenting on. Sure, current All Blacks playing in Australian teams may be a by-product of said plan, but it’s not a critical feature. Framing it as such suggests that the plan involves leveraging some sort of star power that the All Blacks possess, but the reality in Australia’s sporting landscape is that the average punter would struggle to name a current AB. The goal of the plan is creating an even competition which is a position you yourself are advocating for, just with the negative side effects of shrinking the footprint. While current All Blacks playing in Australian teams may eventuate, it’s not a key component. Finally, nobodies suggesting that we adopt the French multi-tiered model with 40-odd semi-professional to professional programs. Although these ‘hundreds of millions in deficits’ have been worn by private investment which is hardly unusual by global standards for domestic competitions, sustaining five professional teams in a domestic competition that prioritises fan engagement is not trying to emulate the French club system. But what (at least) Australia needs to do is have a real go at establishing a truly engaging domestic product (something RA/ARU hasn’t attempted before) that isn’t weighed down by involvement of culturally and geographically distant partners and is free of the shackles that come with being positioned as a trial for test rugby. These dynamics have been present for much of professional rugby’s existence in Australia, yet there have still been glimpses of what can be achieved and it’s not out of this world to assume that something that is purely calibrated for fan engagement can consistently attain more of it.

I genuinely think rugby fans like you are the backbone of teams. If teams could generate and create a large fanbase of people like yourself they would ne in a better place. The players feel appreciated and get inspired. When a team is going through a few poor games or a tough stint, supporters like you are what keeps them going. I don’t know a single rugby player who isn’t appreciative of their fans or take it for granted. So hats off to you Dave. On the other matter however I disagree, fickle fans aren’t going to want to come and watch amateur players with low skills and poorly coached and lacking the talent to make it in another code play, no matter how community minded they are. The best in the state come out to play and that barely draws a crowd. You think it’s just because they aren’t winning and the solution is to drop the quality of rugby and people will turn up? I would go down to the park to watch a footy game between two local sides, because one it is free and I don’t have anything better planned. I am not sweating on the game, it tends to be an advocate decision boosted by what my mates are doing. There is a lot to fix and no easy solutions as it has been run into the ground over decades. Skill levels are poor as noted by players like Tate and Carter Gordon being touted as the second coming when they have serious flaws in their games. Tate can’t pass…. Gordon can”t drop kick or from the tee with anything like enough accuracy. He has a decent punt is his kicking… kicking for the wing, forget it. So he can run, pass and defend but has no ability to control a game from first five. But these guys are among the best available. Do people really want to watch that? Aussie coaches are club coaches for the most part. The pressure is quite different between a club final and a SR final. You are up against the best players in the country as opposed to the best players in a group of suburbs. The club sides in Aus would take a beating from any NPC side. The point being club sides in NZ are feeders to the NPC which are feeders to SR which are feeders to the ABs. You think people are busting there chops to see club footy in NZ remembering rugby has a much bigger following percentage wise in NZ than in Aus. I think suggestions that ditching SR to play a lower quality game that is more competitive is going to bring in fickle fans is quite simply dreaming. In your argument to date you have given no evidence of how this happens. Using the big bash as an example fails on several fronts. The cricketers in Australia are far better known than rugby players, the game has a much larger following being the no. 1 summer sport in Australia as opposed to the number four winter code significantly behind AFL and RL. Australian cricket is still at the very top by international standards. So frankly your logic is way off for mine and you have no evidence of how what you are suggesting will bring in crowds. Will an NRC style competition bring in crowds? Will this be aspiring for parents and youngsters? How will the Wallabies continuing to wallow at 10th ranked or lower inspire the next generation? Forget the fans for a minute. Fans typically want to see a game of skill played between two competitive sides where there are named players.

Rob, you didn’t properly address the reasoning behind what I was saying. The only real rebuttal was that it was in the past and what worked then might not work now as the landscape has changed. As I explained last time, you didn’t address the reasoning behind what I said regarding the things that haven’t changed. The opportunity cost of spending more on pro club rugby was (disastrously) and still is spending less on community rugby (thankfully Waugh has figured that one out). And that concentration of talent into fewer teams means better teams - both at pro club and test level. I’m sure you’re familiar with Ben Darwin’s years of detailed analysis showing how fewer teams improves cohesion and that cohesion is a crucial success factor. As you so charmingly just wrote, “that is my argument and I can’t help you if that’s still going in one and out the other.” It’s funny how you dismiss me for my historical examples then you use old examples yourself. In the seven years 2008-14 the Brumbies had worse results than they’re getting now, reaching the semis 2/7 years, yet their crowds are much worse now. To use your own logic, something has clearly changed in the sporting landscape since then. All of your other examples are just as old and/or are “flash in the pan” as you put it. You haven’t proved that Aussies will watch pro club rugby in big numbers in the current sporting landscape. Similarly your statement about the young talent ignores two crucial factors. First, many are from a league background and it’s no surprise that they mainly end up back in league even with the five teams you currently have. Second, there are far fewer young players now than when the Wallabies were successful - again no surprise considering that community spending plummeted to pay for increased pro spending. Add the inferior cohesion due to having more pro teams than you used to and your well documented inferior coaching and chances of success are limited. The base of your pyramid is too narrow and your second to top tier too low and fat to create a high apex. As for the “putting words into your mouth” claim, well “a product that consistently cuts through the increasingly cluttered sporting landscape” are your words and the “unrestricted player movement across the competition” that you advocate would result in the other half of my statement. Even if it is “good for the competition” it won’t be good for the All Blacks and it won’t be good for the watered down kiwi teams in the forthcoming world club competition. Finally, you claim that “France has emerged as the epicentre of the rugby world on the back of its Top 14 establishing itself as the game’s prime domestic league.” Well it’s taken 25 years and hundreds of millions of dollars in deficits to get there. Australia doesn’t have a lot of money and needs to invest more in community rugby not just expensive pro club rugby. Finally, its league has been a big factor in France’s underachieving in the past decade and more. It’s never won a World Cup and won just one Six Nations since 2010, with its star ten complaining that he never gets a rest unless he’s injured. Imagine if they poured their huge playing and financial resources into an Irish or kiwi type system.

I did address the reasoning behind it. How can you not see that? I put it to you that the landscape from the era that you are talking about is vastly different to what’s in front of us in 2024. For that reason, you cannot simply transplant the same structures from a time when the game was just establishing itself professionally (not to mention it wasn’t far off the days when League/AFL players were semi professional themselves) and expect the same outcomes. That is my argument and I can’t help you if that’s still going in one and out the other. As mentioned above, we shrink ourselves down further and reduce potential pathways for fans and players to engage in the game while the behemoths that rugby operate alongside continue to dominate the landscape and the next conversation becomes about going from 3 to 2 teams and the spiral into irrelevancy continues. That’s why such a model isn’t sustainable. Not to mention that there’s plenty of talent in the teenage/early 20’s bracket that are every chance of becoming future Wallabies but the opportunities to play rugby locally won’t be available to them. I’m not suggesting more teams than 5 if we continue to play with NZ (which I believe should remain our goal), but this is already a dynamic at play and reducing the footprint further only serves to exacerbate it and is therefore counterproductive in elevating the Wallabies on field fortunes. There’s more to last year’s NZR SRP review than just the relationship between SRP and the NPC. There’s plenty that has come from it that is scathing of SRP and centres around the format and the competition itself and its lacklustre ability to achieve effective fan engagement. I haven’t ignored anything. There’s not exactly a shortage of first tier countries where rugby is under some sort of threat and/or finds itself sliding on a negative trajectory (with varying degrees of gradient). Ireland is engaged in a cross-country competition that it has dominated for years and four professional teams is probably an adequate number for the game to gain sufficient exposure within a market of Ireland’s size. Meanwhile, France has emerged as the epi-centre of the rugby world on the back of its Top 14 establishing itself as the game’s prime domestic league. The global sporting landscape is shifting and Unions cannot afford to remain stagnate and reproduce the same strategy because it was effective in a bygone era. That hasn’t worked well for certain parts of cricket where everything was geared towards the promotion of the international game. I’m not saying that ‘adding All Blacks to Aussie rugby teams will create a product that consistently cuts through the increasingly cluttered sporting landscape’. That’s putting words into my mouth and misrepresenting what I’m advocating for (which is also a position that has been mentioned across the Tasman to improve SR too). I’m saying that conditions that encourage real and unrestricted player movement across the competition will create a more even competition which is a good thing for said competition- for both countries. You say ‘Aussies haven’t proven they will watch pro club rugby in big numbers’. I say balderdash. In the 5 years between 2003 to 2007, the Brumbies sustained average crowds that were in excess of 18k. This includes 3 years where the crowd average in Canberra was above 22k. In the 7 years from 2008 to 2014, the Brumbies managed to maintain average crowds above 14k. While this 7-year window may not sound particularly impressive, as a guide for the Canberra market, the Raiders have only achieved average crowds above 14k for 3 seasons this century. In the first 3 years of the Forces existence, they sustained crowds in excess of 23k with a peak result of 28.5k. In the 5 years between 2006 and 2010 and again in 2014 to 2015 seasons, the Waratahs sustained average crowds of between 23 and 30k. In the 5 years between 2010 and 2014, the Reds sustained average crowds of between 24 and 34k. This includes 3 seasons where the crowd average was above 32k (greater than the Broncos at the time). Games against the Waratahs in this period also drew between 36 and 42k. Finals have also provided an insight into the ‘casual’ fan base that domestic rugby could tap into with crowds and engagement that is not far off what we experienced in test rugby’s better years. The Rebels haven’t exactly got the runs on the board from an engagement standpoint but the Storm (who are in a sport that had a lower standing than rugby in the state) have shown that there is a way to become entrenched in the home of AFL and Australia’s second largest state. While some of the windows outlined above were some time ago, they weren’t ‘flash in the pan’ moments and represent considerable periods of time where strong engagement was attained while demonstrating that a strong interest in a domestic rugby product isn’t a pipedream. It just requires the right conditions to flourish and when/if it does, it has the potential set Australia (and dare I say NZ) on the right course once more.

Thanks for the ad hominem. For what it's worth, I missed 1 tahs home game in the first 20 years of SR. I've done my time. I don't often go now because it isn't fun anymore, it's just frustrating watching them get outplayed more often than not and never beating a NZ team. My concern here is SR, not the wallabies. They will keep losing Bledisloes and getting knocked out in the pool stages of the RWC for a while, no shuffling of coaches is going to change that. Quality of play needs to improve from the ground up and that takes a long time, there have been too many short term fixes. The first step is getting people engaged again so that maybe some kids will actually want to play the game. We can't fix the wallabies so we need to fix SR. If we want fickle non-rugby folk to come on board then we need to at least offer them competitive teams. They aren't going to care that we aren't playing the best in the world. They watch the Big Bash even though the IPL is better, the French still watch the Ligue 1 even though the Serie A is better. They just want to feel like the team they support might win.

My mistake on the comments being on the same thread, but you can't say that you've picked apart my arguement when you've not addressed the reasoning behind it. You totally ignored the point that when Australia only had three teams it was able to afford to spend a high proportion of its income on community rugby but the more it spent on professional rugby the less it had left to spend on community rugby. That opportunity cost remains. You did at least mention my point that when Australia had fewer teams it had better teams. However, to dismiss it as a "quick bounce" when the improvement in results would likely be sustainable is hardly picking it apart. You've also completely ignored the reason behind the NZ Herald article/NZR report you're quoting. The problems it lists are related to the "bet both ways" between Super & NPC, resulting in confusion over "when the competition will start, which players are available and how to relate to both SR and NPC." Nothing that your plan to have current All Blacks playing for Aussie teams would fix. You dismiss my arguement because it cites past experience but then use the NHL example which is irrellevant because Canada doesn't get most of its income from its national team. That's totally unbalanced. All round the world it's test rugby that has made the profits and big audiences and top level pro club rugby that has relied on big subsidies from benefactors and/or international rugby. No exceptions. Big audiences because it cuts through to non rugby fans in a way that pro club rugby doesn't which you need when rugby is a minority sport. You say that the huge interest in rugby when Australia was successful was in the past and therefore irrellevant but Aussies are still much more likely to support Aussie national reps and teams that succeed. I'm not saying that pro club rugby is irrelevant, but it doesn't generate the audiences and profits of test rugby. If you take a decision on pro club rugby that negatively affects test rugby there's net damage to the game overall. In addition, Americans have proven that they will watch in their droves pro club hockey right now in the present but Aussies haven't proved that they will watch pro club rugby in big numbers. Who's to say that adding All Blacks to Aussie rugby teams will create "a product that consisently cuts through the increasingly cluttered sporting landscape"? Rugby is tiny compared to league and Aussie rules and I've aleady talked about how international rugby is what cuts through. Your plan has no guarantee of succes at all. You're asking NZR to take a high risk low reward gamble on by far the biggest rugby brand in the world.

Australia's woes started when they diluted the quality of their teams to the point where they were simply uncompetitive. There's absolutely no attraction for fans in seeing your sporting teams inevitably beaten. Not only did Super suffer, but so did the performances of the Wallabies as a result of the general decline in professional standards; To little talent, spread to wide, means no real stimulus for player self-improvement. It's human nature that the elite drag the rest of us up. The answer is not to dilute your talent even further. No potential international player will stick around to play in a poor comp. The standards of NRC will barely be above club level, the leap from NRC to Test rugby will become insurmountable and the Wallabies will become entrenched as a 2nd tier team. NPC rugby is struggling for relevance in NZ and it has far more history behind it and established professional standards than NRC will ever have.

Jez, sport is deeply embedded into the culture of a community. If you spend money where another sport is already embedded you're not going to get much return. To do it while drastically reducing expenditure in the communities that are already interested in your sport is lunacy.

And that is not to say fans arr not important, but the product and the quality of play and players is in my view what draws crowds. Of course that is just my view. And on top of that, you sound like a fan any team would hugely be proud of.

So players are going to want to play in this competition and aspire to play second tier countries. And when players like Jorgenson etc, choose to play league then the quality of player drops and Aussie crowds will flock to that because its more competitive? In NZ they regard the players as the most important ingredient. In Australia you seem to be saying its all about the fans. Have a dumbed down comp, a bit of marketing and Aussie rugby will be vastly improved do you think?

That logic is all your own, nothing to do with me. The relevant figures for working out the significance of each countries potential revenue for their primary football code in their own country are each countries GDP in their own dollars compared with the overall revenue in that country of the pay TV currently televising their sport in their own dollars. AFL, NRL and NZR are after all being paid in the own dollars. $2500 billion AU GDP $0400 billion NZ GDP $3.97 billion AU Foxtel revenue $0.75 billion NZ Sky NZ revenue Those are the latest figures. Australia has an economy has 6.1 times that of NZ, dollar for dollar, and Foxtel has revenue 5.3 times that of Sky NZ, dollar for dollar. Those figures reveal that NZers spend even more on pay TV than Australian's relative to the size of their own economies, and the overall expenditure almost exactly matches the difference in population, Australia being 5.05 times of NZ. The difference in pay TV revenue is the most instructive. My contention that NZ rugby therefore being, with a proper format, worth a fifth in NZ dollars in NZ of what NRL and AFL combined is worth in Australia in Australia in Australian dollars, so around NZ $200m p.a. rather than NZ $100 p.a., is therefore directly relevant. It has nothing to do with the comparative size of the economies. That means nothing. It is how much their own countries public is willing to pay for those sports in their own money. Your second contention, that the 400 game AFL/NRL programme would have to matched in NZ to generate the same revenue makes two really basic analytical mistakes. The first is failing to recognise that the primary driver of subscriptions in the subscribers own team, not the rest of the teams in the comp. Once that subscriber can watch their own team often enough, then the rest of the comp is a bonus. How many games does anyone watch in a weekend? Who watches all the games in the NRL every weekend? Or AFL? As long as NZ Rugby could provide 4 games a weekend for 20 to 25 weekends a season featuring all the best players available in the country then that would drive subscriptions rather better than one or two local derbies and NZ v Aussie games in SRP for 14 weekends a season, then 7 local derbies for 10 weekends a year in NPC. Having a guaranteed NZ v NZ playoffs and final every year would also be far more valuable. But the fundamental mistake you make is failing to recognise that pay TV subscriptions for rugby in NZ are driven by the All Blacks. Think State of Origin in terms or ratings/revenue driving, but around 12 times a year, not 3. Dont need 400 games a year to get those sort of subscriptions. So how much will Sky NZ pay to keep NZ rugby in a world when NZR has choices, particularly given the reality that the loss of which would destroy the company in the same way the loss of AFL and NRL would destroy Foxtel? Comparatively as much Foxtel pays the AFL and NRL? Come up with the right format, and that is entirely possible.

Well no, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that people would rather watch a lesser comp where their team is competitive than a superior comp where they always lose. It's just human nature. We aren't concerned with the rusted on here, although I'm one and I never used to miss a Tahs game (missed one home game in the first 20 years of SR), now I often can't be bothered. We're talking about growing the game. People will jump on a winner in an inferior Aus-only domestic comp faster than they will jump on a loser in a superior Aus-NZ comp.

That's what makes the current Stan offering so appealing. Not tied to any viewing time - numerous replay options and good historical content. Streaming has to be the way to go.

spending all that money in places where hardly anyone’s interested has been a disaster The method yes, the goal is still the right one.

Its all relative. There's only ever been 30-odd Wallabies born in all of the other states combined and hundreds (despite in NSW/QLD outside your narrow definition. Cutting down on grass roots in these areas and spending all that money in places where hardly anyone's interested has been a disaster.

Need the national comp. I was surprised that alot of the Malaysians were close to a competitive weight. Super is dead though. In the old days it really was the pinnacle of excellence but it really hasn’t been for years now. The top 5 teams would do well in Europe and it’s hard to ever bet against the crusaders but when super rugby was strong the Tahs and reds would beat most national teams. Now they have a lot of kids many of whom will never reach the level required