it also needs to be recognised the there are more afl players in victoria then there are rugby players in australiaQuote:
Originally Posted by AndyS
its interesting that you listed all those issues, because if you compare them to the reasons why union went professional to start with, its actually doing pretty well
You're arguing that the ARC had a similar structure to the AFL and NRL? Yeah, good luck with that. In that case, you might as well compare it the NBL and the old Australian Baseball League then - both of which collapsed under their own weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyS
Yes, I am. In fact, many of the same locations as the NRL. The comparison wasn't success, it was structure and each competition was suburban/regional domestic teams playing home and away within Australia. The size and duration of the comps are different, but the structure is basically the same.
When the NRL creates a competition pitting each of the states against NZ, PNG and any other comers, or the AFL revives and expands the SOO series and introduces some international sides, and both shut down their professional domestic competitions, then we can compare the result with Super Rugby.
The ARC had merit but spewing cash really sucked. A case of running before learning to walk.
No use having a legit 3rd tier comp nationally until a critical mass of players is reached. Start small and local and build the interest in city comps, get into the western suburbs of Sydney where there are a heap of talented young kids who now are being hunted by A=FL and NRL and even football are talking about having another Sydney team. The only reason that would happen is because of population.
Don't know about what areas are growing in Perth......?
When has Australia ever had a professional domestic rugby competition to even shut down? Our professional players have only and will only ever be Super Rugby players, any version of the ARC will only ever be a semi-professional support competition, so any comparison with the NRL and AFL when people are trying to talk it up is quite simply ridiculous.
I'm all for people arguing the case for the/an ARC but please maintain some perspective when doing so.
The ARC was spewing cash because all of the start-up costs were considered against the one year of operation (rather than over three years, which is common), it had very little sponsorship and the teams were acting like Super 14 teams going on extended tours and staying with huge retinues in hotels. If the ARC gets re-started they have to sort out costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by chook
And you can't wait for enough players in each area before starting the ARC because you need the ARC to generate the interest to get the players. At the moment, WA or NSW school-boys can watch AFL or NRL on FTA. There are local teams playing in the national competition and they can see a progression from playing in school to local clubs, academies and the NRL/AFL. In rugby the progression is broken because there are spots for 10-20 players each year in the Super 14 academies. But give them the opportunity with a 8-10 team national competition and the chance to then go on to play internationally (which AFL lacks and NRL only does laughably) and watch them sign up.
You are missing the point, beige. What JO'N said is that the AFL and NRL (with their competition structures) are supported by state based semi-pro/amateur comps, and Super Rugby (with its competition structure) is supported by state based amateur rugby, therefore we must be on the right track. I just don't think you can compare an international professional competition with a domestic professional competition. If you could, then the ACB has clearly got it all wrong and the Test team should be underpinned by District Cricket (putting Jargs on the brink of selection).
If he is right and the AFL/NRL structure (and associated success) can apply to Rugby, then logically the Super structure could equally work for the other codes. So if the NRL or AFL made the changes as above with only the VFA/WAFL to support them, would it all be good? If not, how are the structures, pros and cons in any way comparable?
And I don't think you can compare the ARC with a domestic professional competition either.
See Sheik's arguments I can live with because they're actually based on reality and genuine concerns about the development of the game rather than spurious analogies, unrealistic assumptions and anti-John O'Neill invective.
And I think you can. They are at least like-for-like in terms of structure and objective, even if the AFL/NRL are nothing more than the example of how it can be done successfully. Doesn't mean the ARC can emulate the size and reach, but there would have to be lessons that could be learnt. At even the most superficial level, things I would take out of a comparison would be:Quote:
Originally Posted by beige
- the importance of a FTA broadcasting deal in terms of brand recognition, attracting supporters, media coverage, sponsors etc
- the importance of effective and constant promotion
- the need to connect to the underpinning amateur competitions (so much easier for a domestic competition than an international one)
- the opportunity to attempt an administrative structure to suit Australian conditions alone, without also having to accommodate international partners
- the advantages offered by being able to adopt whatever governing laws desired, without being hostage to endless trials and veto by others
There would doubtless be many others, and some may also have passing relevance to Super Rugby, but there is direct relevance to any domestic competition at whatever level.
the ARC was a example of the ARU spending beyond there means, why not progressively develop the competition rather then diving in the deep end, minimise the initial costs whilst developing a profile for the compeition which is only going help attract sponsors and fans further dow the track.
The ARC was a good idea, but Gary Flowers went about the wrong way of setting it up, he completely alienated the Brisbane and Sydney rugby communities by setting up new teams with no historical or tribal links. Now, its easy to sit over there in Perth and say 'tough luck', but its the Brisbane and Sydney rugby communities carry the game in Australia, by alienating them they were only ever going to head down the path of failure.
The concept of providing a semi-professional rugby tournament was a good one, the way they went about setting it up wreaked of amateurism and bad management.
I still don't agree with that statement but I actually agree with the rest of that post.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyS
Yeah so S18 vs S15 = 4 extra games. If you look at the Currie Cup there are only 5 competitive teams and those are the 5 with Super 14 franchises. If rugby's fortunes have a bit of a turn around I'd be surprised if SA wouldn't allow a bit of overlap. It would ensure competitiveness from all of the Currie Cup sides (and surely a competitive comp is better than one thats is constantly a blow out against the likes of the Griquas or the Cavaliers or whoever).Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyS
Its worth thinking about anyway.
Well that makes no sense at all, its a chicken/ egg scenario. You need the player base surely, the foundations, if you will. As good as the ARC was ( despite the rockstar lifestyle they led) put that aside until later. Get the district teams stronger and promoted highly in growth areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheikh
I disagree, Chook.
There are enough players currently playing in state-based competitions to fill the spots on 8-10 teams. That was shown by the ARC. The level of play in the ARC wasn't Super 14 level, and might not have been much better than Shute Shield level, but that was because you were building teams from scratch of players unfamiliar with each other. Any new competition would undergo the same problems. But the second year would be better - players/combinations become more familiar, unsuccessful players are dropped back to state comps and new talents brought in.
The problem with Rugby in Australia isn't the number of players (well not the main problem), it's that so few players regularly play to a high standard.
If there were an ARC-type comp with 10 starting hookers, would the Wallabies have to experiment with converting Pek during a tour?
that still doesnt solve the issue that these teams have no foundations in the Sydney/Brisbane regions, which i believe is one of the points that Chook was getting at, correct me if im wrong chook but i believe that we see the whole 'ARC' issue from a brisbane/sydney view point where most rugby fans have close affiliations to there current clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheikh
I have said it before and il say it again, you cant alienate the clubs in Brisbane and Sydney, especially Sydney because they are larger and better established. Australia Rugby has such a small base that by smiting one part of that landscape you are inexplicably damaging your chance to suceed.
Imagine how the ARC would have alternatively gone if we had of seen the sydney teams given the license as to how they were to proceed, something along the lines of giving each club a vote as to how they should proceed, not everyone would be happy but at least there would have been a majority split. We could have had clubs agreeing to cooperate rather then been forced to offer up there players.