My all time favorite player. Australia hasn’t produced a boot that good since his retirement.

Just Brilliant.

When I first read about this I was excited. Still am actually. The fact that they are having the discussion shows that the right people realise not to waste a good crisis.

However, and its a big howwwweeevvvveerr. I assume Andy Marinos will be leading the discussions for SANZAAR. He has demonstrated his deficiencies on so many occasions so I won’t list them all.

The latest one is pretty indicative of his abilities as a sporting administrator. He decided to send out a press-release reminding all the JV partners that deals had been agreed and locked into for the next five years and arrogantly told everyone not to get too carried away will this transformation chat. Literally at the same time as NZ , AUS and SA (maybe) were actively trying imagine new was increase value of the game and its structure. This was been backed up by broadcasters in AUS and NZ as well. This guy is idiot. That is not impolite to say if it is true.

So yeah that what concerns me most about this, the people we are sending into room to negotiation with real administrative professionals in 6 nations

Yeh nah mate. This is not situation normal so you can’t judge this situation that way. We now know that their RA contracts have been cancelled as well so they ain’t going to another SR club. Nor should they. Maybe they will play for the Wallabies some day the difference now is that day looks way out into the future and is contingent upon 2 things.

1. They are right people for the position and where ever they do go has a rugby programme that can continue their development to standard that is ready for the Wallabies.
2. This is related to 1. Some other young gun doesn’t emerge and crowd them out.

These are two biggest ‘rugby’ risks they have taken. People will probably get over it eventually but whether they are still seen as the next big things will remain to be seen.

I not really sure what thesis is here. Its just collection of thoughts. However, I agree with the headline but more because everyone will benefit from new provisional rugby structure. Again the points been made aren’t very clear but everyone will benefit from better TV zones. That’s just a basic commercial fact. Prime time = more $. Everyone will benefit from less travel maybe more so for SA but other teams will also benefit from not having to travel to SA and be reffed by of the one locals. That is probably a net loss for the SA teams actually. Fundamentally its none rugby stuff that SA really needs focus on. The cultural and economic issues likely cause far more issues for SA rugby than any bad TV Deal / Competition could ever do. This is the complete opposite to AUS and NZ who are very stable countries. Thus the uplift they can get from better comps /TV deals will be considerable, given the low base they working from. The reality is that if NZ/AUS get together rugby will have the potential to develop a product that can compete with the NRL especially for the casual viewer who isn’t really exposed to much rugby product currently because of the SR structure. What some saffers may not know is that NRL is very popular in NZ because its an easy product to get into. Not because league is better game than union. Its too early to say who benefit and who will lose but my thinking is that everyone will benefit and some may benefit slightly more than others. It is still rugby.

This is very sad and I know these guys will live to regret this decision when they look back at their careers. They will never play for the Wallabies. RA cannot condone this behavior at this time and it must never forget. Picone should also be isolated from this sport.

I don’t know much about professional rugby contracts but I have negotiated quite a few commercial agreements. Under the right circumstances all deals are made to be broken.

Its a good question. Its not fair, but having watched all my team’s best players leave and come back to beat my team I can honestly say that isn’t fair either.

I am floating this idea in a message board. If someone with actual influence flew the kite on this one it would interesting to see the reaction. Maybe its already been discussed.

Desperate times call for bold measures. I can’t think of bigger olive branch to WA, WA Rugby, The Sea of Blue (or whatever they call themselves) and yes Twiggy, than letting DHP, Andrew Degan, Isac Fines, Carlo T all go back to their ‘home’ club. This would be true gesture of coming together for better of the game. If the effectively worthless player contracts get in the way of of idea like this then the professional game deserves to die in this country.
Full disclosure, I am Reds fan and unlike the last time the Force joined the party my team will not be getting gutted this time.
Note: I say worthless because all player contracts will need to be renegotiated once the dust settles. The TV money just won’t be there to sustain current salaries.

I wonder if the Force players who have left the club to continue their careers in high level rugby will be asking to return the club for this comp. Otherwise I suspect they will be nothing but road kill for the rest of the teams.

Really like the thinking.

I understand the point about reducing the number of teams in order to benefit the Wallabies. It just won’t happen unless some go broke which the Force definitely will not. So here’s my compromise.

Hypothetically the max Provisional (SR) teams Aus could have is 8. Equivalent to 1 for each state and territory. Let’s now say up to that number anyone who wants a team can have one. However, they must meet min criteria. X number active registered members, stadium, historical NRC overall performance (off and on field) etc…

Also, they must abide the national player management and contracting strategy that cedes to the National Coaching Team final decision over all player placements. There would no restriction on the number of non- national contracted players in any squad. Key requirement is for the squad to be professionally competency and have a competitive spirit.

This could enable our existing five team footprint, unlikely to change at this point, to have a weaker impact on the cohesiveness in the Wallabies. For example, under this model there would be player management plan developed to ultimately enhance the Wallabies performance. Player movements through the ranks would be carefully managed to ensure the end product is perfectly preferred for throwing in the arena. I note that many excellent emerging NZ talent this year were only really getting started in big leagues at 22,23. Well into their professional careers. This slow cook approach will likely create the demand for non-national contracted talent to ensure professional and competitive provisional teams (that play NZ)

When this all settles. The OS player market is going to open up. Yes, stars will be drawn to the big stable money OS -v- their broke home unions but this will also have flow on effect to the lower to middle grade players. They will likely be pushed out by the new talent coming in. Still effective but now likely cheaper and looking for some stability. They could prove to be and effectively backfill for our squads if recruited wisely. $ 60k – 100k p.a might look like good money in the new sports economy.

My team is QLD, they would probably lose a player or two because they looked stacked in some positions (locks) but there wouldn’t be mad rush for the door because a few extra bucks were offered. There would be a three-way conversation between player, club, and national coaching team. Perhaps Dave Rennie says, “I want Angus Blyth from the Reds playing 80mins each week”. Well if he can’t get it there then they will look to find another team where he can. It’s very simple example and I think everyone here knows the point. NZ has been doing it for years without the non-national contracted players.

The other outcome this approach would prevent is the raiding of other provisional teams by cash up competitors a.k.a the Force to the Reds in 2007. Ultimately this approach didn’t benefit anyone last time around.

Sensible nationally contracted squad management with a flexible backfill player strategy should be able deliver on the improving Wallabies performance and ensuring a provisional rugby footprint than can go head to head with NZ week in and week out.

But a nagging feeling persists that Australia never quite extracted the best from Quade Cooper, despite his 70 international caps.

So much truth in this statement.

If you’re a serious Reds fan like me then you’ve learnt that making win/loss predictions is masochistic exercise if there ever was one. However, they look like team that are enjoying playing together with a game plan that while not working completely yet it is definitely working for them as a team. Added to that is the youthful energy of Harry Willson et al. They should definitely be able to win more games than last year (Thorn’s first KPI) and if they do well (BPs) then they may also push for the finals. Honestly I have been really happy to watch this team lose this year which is a very weird feeling but if they can’t take down the weaker sides coming up then I can see myself reverting back to my baseline Red’s fan emotions.

I agree with this assessment. The point I am really trying to make is that you shouldn’t bench/or re-position Campbell because of his goal kicking. His general play attack has been excellent. Top 5 (fullbacks) for all key attacking stats (run meters, tackle busts, line breaks). His general play kicking is ok, certainty not the worst. I don’t think Hegerty will bring the same advantage in general play. Which poses the question. Is having a player who can get points better than having a player create the opportunities for those same points to be scored? Its a moot point now because Paisami is out so Hegerty will be starting this weekend. Watch Campbell’s effectiveness drop off from the wing.

Good piece Geoff. I can’t get onto this ‘why didn’t Thorn pick a kicker’ bus.

First, Campbell has been kicking all season (average at best) so he is obviously the team kicker which I assume means he is the best kicker in the run team.

Second, to suggest anyone in the starting backline should have been subbed for someone else who could kick (Hegerty) is ridiculous. Campbells attack and defense contribute far more to the team’s performances verse the lost points from his kicks.

Get a better kicker yes, hopefully by just making someone in run on team better, but don’t start this false argument that leads to a Bernard Foley type player been selected in team for one thing he does well while been average a whole bunch of other things.

You’re theory is little too John Nash for me. the volume of these articles has been quite extraordinary for a ‘4th rate code’. Maybe it is just because there a lots of people in the mainstream media who love rugby and they just really want to see it do better, (Que me vomiting in mouth). However, They must be getting clicks which is why they keep coming. Thank god for The Roar, Green and Gold, Pillar to Post podcast, Rugby Report Card, all the other fringe and even Rugby Australia media that love and promote this game in the ways us fans deserve.

Great piece Geoff. Didn’t have to look far for the perfect example.
Exhibit A: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/john-singleton-s-five-point-plan-to-save-rugby-union-20200224-p543ow.html.
Two old fellas on the gas can come up with some strange stuff.

Great piece Geoff. Didn’t have look far for the perfect example.

Exhibit A: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/john-singleton-s-five-point-plan-to-save-rugby-union-20200224-p543ow.html

2 old codgers can come up with some strange stuff.

Stillmissit: This is the concern about a future National Club Comp. Do the Pro teams disconnect from the club teams and are there a bunch of diamonds left unearthed in the bottom of table Div 1 and the Div 2 sides. Do the stronger clubs just poach all the best school boy talent first and then pick up scraps from colts. Not very good for tribal equity. I actually really want this work. I just hope people smarter than me can figure out the solutions to some of these problems first. At least the NRC sides were a type of rep side that theoretically picked the best club players from the season.

Very interesting to hear to your perspective Anthony. I think that a TV deal that brings extra money into the clubs, even if it is a tiny amount, would incentivise the stronger clubs to get behind this. It will benefit them the most in the long run.
However, you’ve touched on the nub of the issue. If this TV deal is done as reported will rugby just be trading away professional player development in return more grass roots tribalism?
The NRC is doing a pretty good job at a player development just look at the performances of the so called ‘next generation’ players over the first 2 rounds. These performances were built off the back of strong club and NRC seasons.
The NRC teams are run by the Super Rugby franchises which (hopefully) means there is a close alignment in skill development and conditioning programmes between the Pro team and Semi Pro team.
How will tribal club competition develop the players who are ready for Super Rugby? If the alignment to Pro teams is weak then from (asset) talent management perspective how will things been any different from the current state. Amateur clubs running amateur rugby programmes.
This is not to suggest that amateur rugby programmes can’t produce Super Rugby players. The problem is the capacity across the whole system.
For example, QPR has eight teams and less than 3 that would be considered realistic chances of becoming genuine rugby nurseries. The club rugby nirvana, the Shute Shield, sounds about the same.
I base this assessment on simple criteria such as; the state of the grounds infrastructure, junior to senior player depth, the quality and depth of the coaching & ancillary support organisation, the level tribalism within the supporter base and, most importantly, the balance sheet to sustain the whole thing.
So I guess this is how we end up with have’s and have not list of clubs a.k.a Div 1 and Div 2. Relegation and promotion will ensure some equity in the model. In the long run it is clear where it will all settle. A few very strong Semi-Pro clubs, and then day light, and then the rest.
I will end with this thought experiment. In the new tribal club world how does a young prop emerge like a diamond in the rough?
This is the persona of the prop I would like you to consider. He didn’t make the 1sXV. He played at poor local premier club with an overflowing spoon draw. He only did this because he loves the game. Two years later he has emerged as scrum weapon for his local club and even demolishing seasoned professionals. This is noticed by the local Pro team. He is now placed into high performance programme and ultimately selected into NRC at the end of the season. After raising to the challenge of the NRC he is now invited into the professional pre-season camp. A impressing at pre-season he is now professional rugby player.
This took 1 colts + 1 premier + 1 NRC season. This is the real professional pathway for a highly talented yet previously unknown rugby player.

Blah blah blah…nothing new here

The Melbourne Brumbies. It could work.

I reckon you’re spot regarding home game location for the Country teams. QLD Country will play their 4 “home” games at 4 different locations. Pretty hard for team a build any local profile or grass roots support under those circumstances. The interview with NSW country manager touched on this point and I wouldn’t be surprised if in 2015 both country teams choose a home ground and stick to it. Toowoomba is the natural location for the QLD team however, it will probably take a serious private supporter to make this happen. Maybe the Wagner family can be convinced to get on board, they have just built a new international air port in Toowoomba, so they have plenty of dough.

That does sound like a lot, $66k – $198k over the season. But let’s say you go for the no frills option, 1 – 2 camera and no commentary. Let’s also say that 2000 people will watch each game steamed/available online for free (excluding Fox). So that’s 6000 people per week watching the content if the games streamed/available at no cost to the viewer. These are very small numbers.

Now I am going to make a heroic assumption and one based entirely on my own preferences. I am an accountant and an economist, so I am comfortable with this.

Let’s say a third of these people would still watch the games even if they had to pay to access the content. That’s 2000 people per week paying to watch the streamed/available games. Let’s say their maximum price point is $5 per round or roughly $50 for a season pass.

Now you’ve just generated $100k of subscription revenue before sponsorship and even assuming your costs are 25% higher than the $66k you originally estimated for the season, you’ve still made money, maybe!

All of this rests on the assumption that the die hard, grass roots, ‘rugby is me life’ punters get on board. Judging by what we have seen in these initial rounds that assumption may not be too wide of the mark.

The real point I am trying to make here is not that it is The Roar’s responsibility to think about this stuff. It is the responsibility of a well-resourced media organisation to give genesis to these types of ideas (all of them above). Unfortunately the media organisation rugby has been monopolised by is doing what monopolist always do, raping profits from the consumer while providing a substandard product.

Good ideas, there’s probably enough there for the ARU to roll out over the next two seasons. If they read The Roar they will no doubt do this.

But why can’t live streaming start immediately? Why doesn’t The Roar fill the gap in this space? The Roar must have official contacts within all the teams and could probably pull in some key sponsor to help with the production costs. I don’t know how much a live stream costs but I am assuming its not much. I mean all these games will be getting filmed, so it should just be a matter of hooking the camera up to internet? Of course the quality will vary but at least its a start.

Last time I checked there were 1800+ views City -v- Melbourne game. If that can be repeated across the comp that’s thousands of additional people every week. No huge numbers, but tapping into the core supporters is vital to build momentum for next year when hopefully some of the professional ideas set out in this article are implemented.

There are lots and lots of comments in this article. Many centre on the assertion of a few. Namely, that the NRC is a failure and that the crowd numbers are there to prove it. I believe when making these types of assertions, i.e. ones based on hard data, you need to be very careful to avoid data sampling errors. Accordingly, I have dug up some old 2007 data from the ARC.

Without graphics its challenging to describe all the factors at play. By Rd 3; the ARC Gross Crowd 39k , NRC 24k. On the face of it this looks pretty bad but like I said at the start there are many factors at play that the overall numbers don’t reveal. The biggest one has been mentioned in lots of comments, MARKETING. The ARU has simply not put in any effort in this regard. I would say the ARU marketing budget for NRC is probably less than what a single powerhouse Sydney/Brisbane rugby club would have to spend during a season. Some of the other factors appear to be parochial. Perth, Melbourne and Canberra were strong contributors to crowd numbers in the ARC’s early rounds.

No doubt back in 2007 the ARU would have liked what they were seeing by the end of Rd 3. It was fools gold, the weekly crowd numbers dropped significantly from Rd 4 onwards culminating in a final that was attended by 1500 people, which is about half the number that went to the semi final the week before at the same venue.

If the NRC maintains avg 8k round gross attendance through to the end of season then it will eclipse the gross crowd numbers of the 2007 ARC season. This would not be a bad out come at all. In fact given the significantly lower cost structure of the NRC, plus Fox Sports $1.5m contribution, the competition may even break even with these numbers.

This is an important point because the NRC has three strategic objectives 1) Better pathways for players to professional rugby (increasing depth in the talent pool) 2) Growing the grass roots fan base 3) Creating more content to sell for TV rights.
I think may would agree objective number 1 is currently been realised. 2 and 3 are the long game and it is because of these that the ARU needs this comp to be break even from the get go. This will ensure is continuity year after year and its only from continuity that fan bases can grow and its only from strong fan bases that TV rights start to look valuable.

In summary before you start bashing the comps numbers at least make the effort to compare apples with apples.