Totally agree. He got rid of the pocket referee too which was the best way of cleaning up the ruck while freeing up the main ref to focus on enforcing the 10.

This bloke dead set might as well be speaking in tongues. How anyone can take anything that he says with more than a grain of salt is beyond me. Somehow he’s managed to fool another national union though… The guy is the epitome of all froth, no beer.

Brisbane doesn’t need 3 teams. They just got their second (which of course was long overdue) and while the league has made Sydney ‘work’ with 9 teams, it’s still far from an efficient landscape and not something they should be looking to replicate in Brisbane. If what’s there now hasn’t got you into rugby league… you’re probably not going to get into rugby league.

The population of the Sunshine Coast is closing in on half a million people (and growing fast), it’s an hour away from Brisbane (more than that by car most of the time), it’s a heartland of the game and they have no NRL representation. It shouldn’t be next but it should absolutely be on the radar and a lil event coming to the South East corner in just under a decade presents a unique opportunity for the NRL to align interests.

A whole generation has grown up with the West Tigers. They just need to be clear about their identity (difficult now with their Concord development) and fully embrace the south west where the potential lies.

Pre the Olympics venue review, Sunshine Coast Stadium was set to increase its permanent seating capacity to 12k with a full capacity of 16k. Temporary seating would expand this 20k for the Olympics soccer. With the facility review rumored to recommend a more regional focus, it’s unlikely the planned development will be scaled back and if anything could be scaled up. The Olympics presents a prime opportunity for the NRL to work with the state government to set up its SEQ footprint for the future and the Sunshine Coast should be apart of their vision for the region.

Advocating for that ‘temporary’ seating to become permanent and possibly adding another 2-5k to the plan isn’t exactly outlandish. As well as delivering an Olympics-ready venue in the State’s third largest city (and the country’s 9th), it clears a significant hurdle for the NRL to make an entrance to the Sunshine Coast in 8-10 years.

I can stomach Adelaide. It’s a place that should be on the radar for future expansion, although I would just get to Perth as a matter of priority and give that the time it needs to become embedded as a team outside the traditional heartland. Tassie is fanciful though. I agree PNG and NZ2 should be in the same bucket for the reasons listed and more, but Tassie needs to be right there with them.

I also don’t mind the idea of relocating Sydney teams, but I’m not totally sold on it though. Sydney could use a tidy-up, but relocations can be tricky. I’d just give Perth its own team and the Tigers need to embrace the South West/Macarthur region as their true home. Forget Liverpool stadiums, that’s Dogs territory. Let them go after that and instead push for a Campbelltown refurb.

While tinkering with Sydney, shift the Dragons to the Gong full time then bring back the Bears on the Central Coast- the only part of Sydney that should be considered for a new team. That’s 18 which should cover bases for the time being. Then SEQ should be the focus when the times right to go to 20. I agree the Sunshine Coast is a logical choice as QLD’s next team and another regional hub in Toowoomba should come into consideration in the years to come. Both places are inline for stadium upgrades for the Olympics (or were pre stadium review) and committing NRL teams in these locations around or just after 2032 will ensure these investments provide a legacy.

This 20 team comp provides more appropriate coverage of Sydney while maintaining the brands that represent the games heritage. It provides more representation of the country’s fastest growing region in SEQ with 5 teams (half the number of Sydney) in and either side of Brisbane. It delivers full time NRL to large and growing heartland regions while the game finally adopts its 2nd team in a ‘non-traditional’ but promising market in Perth.

The other thing most of these clubs/locations bring that places like PNG/NZ2 don’t so much is a crowd/interest when playing existing teams. Bringing back the Bears would be a good thing for all teams in and around Sydney while additional teams in QLD is a positive for the 4 teams there too.

The point that you are unable to grasp is that I’m not defending the strategy!! How many times do I have to say words to that effect?

How about you go up and actually read the original comment that you’ve replied to. It very clearly identifies one positive side-effect this year and a long list of challenges (‘reality checks’) that the NRL faces in achieving the traction it desires in the States.

I’ve framed this increased east coast coverage as a by-product eg. Not the primary strategic objective. Given (again) that I don’t believe the strategy will achieve what it actually targets, do I believe this by-product makes it worthwhile? No! Never said that.

What’s irrelevant in the context of this discussion and the intent of the original comment is whether it’s maintained for the next 4 years or not. It was a single positive observation- nothing more. Your suggestion that it will ‘fail to back up’ is nothing more than an assumption (clouded by a clear distaste for a sport that you know little about) but again- it doesn’t even matter.

Generally I don’t think you possess the ability to see much beyond the end of your own nose, so your rich and compelling assessments are filed under ‘pot/kettle exchanges’.

Your original quote:

‘The only discernible additional “cost” to what the AFL are doing is annoying a few people in Victoria by doing something different’

So, what you originally framed as having a ‘discernible additional cost’, now has no ‘material detrimental effect’. For a fan of a sport with an additional two goal posts at each end- you’re pretty good at moving them!

You’re also a bit of a world champ at putting words in people’s mouths too:

‘To suggest the NRL has an equivalent strategy with the US is laughable’

Where did I suggest it was ‘an equivalent strategy’? I don’t think the Suns/Giants play had much to do with cracking a new gambling market. While one strategy has only just been employed (as unlikely as it may appear, it’s still too early to judge) and one has been pumped for 15 years, the similarity is that neither has realised an ROI. What’s laughable is if this is all about pretending the AFL’s entries into the Gold Coast and Western Sydney could be considered anything close to a success.

I’ve also very clearly said the NRL’s Vegas experiment has drawn in all the ‘coverage’ and ‘attention’. There’s a constant PR battle between the two major football codes and I made the observation that the NRL has clearly won it on the east coast for the last couple of weeks thanks to the Vegas expedition. That’s all I’ve suggested in this boring and repetitive chain with you (nothing about ticket sales) and anything else you’ve read into all on your own. There were more people in Allegiant Stadium on the weekend than there will be in most if not all AFL stadiums this weekend, but I don’t believe the NRL was headlining the local Vegas bulletin last night.

‘And when discussing football in America it is more than the MLS. Those other sports are usually just one competition only’

I’m sorry but that just isn’t correct. Have you ever heard of this little body called the NCAA and what they get up to before? It’s kinda a big deal- particularly in Football which would be head, shoulders and knees above the MLS by all fan metrics. In addition to their respective college presences, the G League in basketball and the minors in baseball also suggest that these sports are so so so much more than their elite leagues.

Yea soccers grown and has a strong presence in the States now. But the ‘big 4’ term exists for a reason and soccer doesn’t make that cut.

Yea that bucket of rocks seems to be the marketing department’s favourite tool. Came in handy when promoting SOO to the croweaters…

And none of that stopped Biden using the name of a British military force to refer to them in a speech in Ireland when thanking Rob Kearney for a tie…

Why ‘hold fire’? It (mass media coverage of the Vegas foray on the east coast) is a real thing happening right now. As for your musings on whether it’s maintained or not, it’s pure speculation.

I never said the AFL was hoping to ‘drown out the Broncos in Vegas’. I’m sure they were hoping for some lead-in publicity from their east coast-centric kick off though and the reality is they’re getting none. Why bother otherwise- as you yourself have admitted, it’s had some sort of a detrimental effect in Victoria.

While I don’t believe this investment will see the NRL unlock the US market with treasure trove of fortunes to follow, there is revenue generating opportunity that might not pull the exercise into black, but will at least go some way towards subsiding it and not make it the deep financial pit you seem desperate to make it out to be.

Again, I’ve said what’s happening isn’t the primary objective that the NRL is hoping to achieve. They have clear strategy and goals in mind (as misguided as you and I believe them to be) and it’s way too early to make calls on whether they’ve been a success or not. Just like nobody expected Western Sydney and the Gold Coast to be turning a profit before a ball had been kicked in those places. And of course there’s been no pressure applied on the AFL over the years (15 long ones here on the GC) around the suitability of those ‘sustained long term investments’ has there…?

This implies that the average American punter knows what the All Blacks are. I think you’ll find most (not all) haven’t a clue.

Define ‘significant risk’? Look, I’m not sold on the idea myself as you may have noticed from the original comment that you replied to. But I don’t think it’s going to do much harm. And as mentioned, one side effect is a kick off that’s drawing in all the attention in at least QLD (and I’m guessing NSW). That being the case, it probably wasn’t the best year for the AFL to play 4 games in rugby league heartland a week early as their unique spin on round 1. It might be a cost neutral exercise but it was clearly done as some sort of ploy to drum up interest in those non-traditional states and I can confirm from SEQ that any AFL news (including their season opening in ‘enemy territory’) has been drowned out.

Who knows.
I’m not sure it is ‘a big issue’ though either.
As touched on in the initial comment, it’s not really the goal of the Vegas foray so whether it’s maintained or not probably is neither here nor there for the NRL.
In any event, Magic Round has only picked up steam since the NRL introduced it as somewhat of a gimmick that it borrowed from the Super League (and I believe another local code has adopted it here too). It wouldn’t be out of this world to believe the number of Aussies being tempted by the bright lights of Vegas continues to grow as the years roll on. I’m sure that phenomenon will edge it towards becoming cost neutral (if it isn’t already with 40k Australians there atm).

Yea the ‘granted, I’m in QLD’ was more-or-less an admission that it’s probably doing little/nothing outside the east coast in non-league states which you’ve confirmed.

I genuinely had no idea what was happening for the AFL opening other than it was in some way different and I was pretty sure it started next week. I’ve got no idea what the AFL is hoping to achieve but my comment was simply an observation that coverage here (including sources beyond Ch 9 Brisbane) has been fixated on Vegas for the last few weeks and nothing else has really had a look in.

It’ll be interesting to see where it gets to in 5 years and it’s great that the NRL have got themselves into a position where it can do something like this.

On the positives, this little foray into Vegas has been a win in terms of the attention it’s generated in Australia. Granted I’m in QLD but the AFL’s kick off next week (and I believe they’re doing something out of the ordinary for that too) has been a total non-event in terms of coverage. With that, the start of Super Rugby and Australia playing cricket in a somewhat favourable timezone across the ditch, the Vegas kick off has sucked in all the oxygen across the landscape (at least on the east coast). Although that wasn’t the primary goal- it’s certainly been a positive side effect.

In the reality check column, I’ve got family either side of Vegas in the Bay Area and DFW and both clusters have heard diddly about what’s going on at Allegiant Stadium this weekend. I’d expect it to be the same outside Vegas and even there is would be minor news. The NBA gets the spotlight now. March madness is a few weeks away. From my regular but distant consumption of US sports media it seems that Connor Bedard has given hockey a boost. And with the Super Bowl and National Championship done, the American Football world goes into two pretty intense months of discussions on draft prospects with mock drafts just about everywhere you turn. The XFL and USFL merger and the rise of flag football presents more challenges for the NRL getting a look-in too.

I know the angle here was ‘gambling’ which made Vegas the logical choice, but in terms of attempting to attract local fan engagement, it’s probably the worst place to be showcasing what you have to offer given what you’re competing against. There’s obviously no shortage of entertainment options on the strip and if you’re struggling to find something to do there on a Saturday night (when the games will be on there), you’re not doing Vegas right. Again, logical as global ground zero for betting and also for attracting fans from home- but if a goal is to get a foothold in the US market, Vegas as a host venue would be at the bottom of the list.

There is a bit of a vibe of the Simpson’s Australian episode in all of this where there’s ’closed’ signs on Subways that are selling vegemite subs. We are so insignificant in eyes of the world’s mass cultural exporter and trying to send something back their way to influence their behaviours and consumption is almost impossible. The Los Angeles Kings and Phoenix Coyotes played a few exhibition games in Melbourne a few months back which caused a bit of a ripple on the local sporting landscape here. That’s even with the global brand behemoth that the NHL is (in comparison to the NRL) when having a play at a market that’s less than a tenth the size of their own. Given those realities I would imagine the NRL cut-through there would be equivalent to that divided by about 20.

I also don’t know that the NFL’s London Series success in comparison to NFL Europe is on the back of things like ‘repeated efforts’. It was a completely different strategy and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that the Jacksonville Jaguars vs New York Jets might sell a bit stronger than the London Monarchs vs Barcelona Dragons.

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.

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.

As touched on in the article, I think population density/concentration is key in a multi-tiered structure with divisions. It keeps transport costs down (also beneficial for fan movement which helps sustain lower divisions) and ensures large population hubs aren’t isolated from the ‘big league’. That’s something we simply don’t have so it will always be hard to adopt this approach in our national sporting leagues.

Our national sporting culture also has a ‘post season’ element embedded where fans want to know that their team starts the season with a chance of being involved in that post season and potentially win their ticket to the big dance. I think this culture makes the ‘sell’ with lower divisions a tough one as Australian fans on mass want to be supporting clubs that are operating at the pinnacle.

In terms of accommodating additional clubs in national leagues, I do think conferences is a viable option for us. I think the ‘travel aspect’ that’s put forward as the position against conferences in these conversations is overstated to some degree. 10 of Australia’s 11 largest cities are located along the ‘J’ that runs down the east coast from the Sunshine Coast, cuts in at Canberra, bottoms out at Melbourne/Geelong before jumping up to Adelaide. You can fly from any location to another along this strip in under 3 hours. Similar flying time in the US only gets you from the west coast to the mid west. Even in the AFC East where my Jets play in the NFL, Boston (Patriots) to Miami (Dolphins) is a 3 and a half hour flight. Dallas to New York in the NFC East is even longer.

What’s inescapable regardless of what competition structure is implemented across a league is that Perth teams will always carry a significant travel burden. So long as a ‘closed conference’ approach isn’t adopted and teams are still playing a good chunk of games across other conferences/areas, then I think there’s merit in a conference approach for leagues that host 18 plus teams.

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.

Where have I disregarded rugby’s international presence or made suggestions that diminish its standing in the game? Like many fans, I’m simply suggesting to not make decisions that diminish or compromise the platform that feeds international rugby and instead unleash its potential as a product that consistently cuts through the increasingly cluttered sporting landscapes around the globe (ours as busy as any) to captivate fans and grow the game. How terrible! And I make such suggestions from the standpoint that effectively engaging fans, getting them invested and winning over hearts and minds of future generations at this juncture of the game is not only beneficial for international rugby, but it’s pivotal for its future success. Gone are the days when 14 or 15 tests (only half of which are played on home soil and half against teams that spark anything close to widespread interest) cuts the mustard for this important work. The code operates in an increasingly competitive and globalised sporting marketplace that is defined by rapid, 27/7 and expanding forms of mass media consumption. The day of reckoning will come for any union whose strategy for engagement and growth is bound by the depth of community connection, footprint and fortunes of their one national team.

Your own NZR review into SRP suggested that ‘interest and engagement has waned’ and ‘that the competition needed to be reinvented as fans of the sport struggled to engage with it in its current form’ (quoted from an NZH article on the review). This commentary on a review from just last August doesn’t really paint the picture that SR is working in NZ, does it?

BTW, those comments quoted back to you above were both replies to me on this here thread (the only one I’ve been involved on from this article). You’ve mentioned community rugby to me once on this thread which took up approximately half a sentence. It’s a relevant piece of the entire rugby puzzle but a whole other conversation and given where you’ve weighted your rhetoric, not one I felt the need to go into with you. In short- agreed, more money (more importantly, a more strategic approach) at the community level is going to provide a positive push.

Nice one Ben! I think (hope, pray etc) that all 5 Australian sides will be stronger than they were last year. Hopefully that translates to this side of the Tasman having some skin in the game in the final and it would amazing to see 2 Australian sides in the last 4 (although I’ll still take maintaining 1). Go the Reds… and here’s to an absolute cracker of a season for the Rebels who go deep and get the turnstiles clicking at Aami Park.

Really? OK. How about:

‘Australia was at its strongest when they had two or three teams’

and

‘Aussie rugby was at its most relevant when it had two or three teams’

I’ve picked apart (now on two occasions) the flaw in inferencing that the supposed connection within those statements provides a path forward for Australian rugby in 2024. Obviously you disagree, but it’s sounds logic that makes sense to more than a few people on here and beyond.

Nobodies saying more teams. Advocating for ‘two or three teams’ because Australian rugby was ‘relevant’ when we had that is like Blockbuster saying we should do away with Blu-ray DVD’s and go back to videos cause that’s when they were most relevant. The markets moved on and it’s simplistic to believe that just because something was successful before, it will provide the same outcomes over two decades later.

Sorry JD, I’ve had this debate with you on numerous occasions in the past and don’t have the interest to go into again and repeat the same arguments. You’re even repeating the same line in back to back comments that was adequately addressed the first time. By now I’m well aware of and respect your difference of opinion.

The ‘two-speed’ competition that we have is a problem that RA and NZR must confront if they are to maintain a relationship at this level (which I believe they should).

The easiest fix is basically operating as most professional leagues do around the globe and embed conditions that effectively remove any sort of restrictions on free player movement across the entities that occupy the competition. Imagine the imbalance in the NHL if the USA’s 25 teams and Canada’s 7 were restricted to talent produced purely within their borders.

I’ve heard and appreciate all the arguments that come from NZ as to why this isn’t desirable. I think the fact that it would probably result in an additional squads worth of NZ talent playing full time professional rugby in the same competition is a strong selling point when coupled with some ‘hand off’ clauses to remove the possibility of such policy laying the platform for it to become an RA poaching-ground.

Beyond that, I don’t think the hypothesis that SRP is working ‘just fine for NZ’ is accurate. It’s not in good health anywhere. It needs a shake-up to start drawing in much-needed interest and a competition that’s exciting and unpredictable is at the foundation of an engaging league that has fans invested. Such conditions are as much a win for NZ as they are for Australia.