Australian rugby is incapable of creating its own national comp

[waratahjesus]

If you are talking about B teams and curtain raisers, you've just doubled travel costs, locked out television and sold not one extra ticket - it has to be a cast iron loser. And what would it be, two rounds of home and away? Who would watch it if the first team was taking on a Kiwi or Saffer team?

If you actually mean a state model, you'll end up with the Melbourne ARC outcome repeated in Adelaide - can't see how that helps either..?

and the arc was seven rounds without these things already in place, a b grade comp already has players from the academy and local clubs plus the grounds are already paid for, travel is going to cost either way!

[AndyS]

Good point on the ground cost, but my point was that the structure would make it definitively impossible for a B team competition to ever sell incremental seats or be televised. It could therefore never be anything but a financial drain, and we've already seen what happens to anything that even looks like costing money.

Our difference seems to be that, regardless of what could happen in the future, you can't see the ARC ever doing anything but losing money. It seems to be a widely held position, but I do find it interesting that it seems to be most commonly taken by those in the heartlands. Frankly, I think it was half the problem with the competition - the people tasked with making it a success went into the exercise already having decided that it would fail. Hence crap television coverage, bugger all promotion, and little or no budget control. Then, boo hoo, year one lost money, it has to go.

I'm not saying that it was the wrong decision - that can be reasonably argued either way. But I would say there are a lot of people involved who view this like my ex views golf - her first ever shot wasn't great, so it is stupid and never to be tried again. Difference is that she doesn't run a golf course...

[waratahjesus]

i agree on most of your post,
what i dont is the doomed to failure part, there were people apposed (mostly due to the structure and cost to clubs etc, they were proven right) the main problem in the eastern states is your running opposite rugby league.

rugby league is owned by news ltd who also owns super rugby. that rules out channel nine showing the games or fox showing them in any sort of competitive nature. it also leaves the aru with a hard decision to make as spending alot of money advertising on rival stations is going to make things with fox frosty and thats where the majority of there funds come from. it pretty much only left abc to carry it and they saw it as something to get people to watch abc 2 which very few people have access to.

the threat of rugby league is a huge one out here, every year the australian schoolboy team and most of the gps rugby teams get copntract offers from the time there 16 to play league, i think manly signed a 14 year old kid last year to keep him away from rugby. its not feasable to take the sport on on a grand scale, especially when your selling it to a paublic by saying, the wallabies are the best there is, super 14 is the next best, this is third tear rugby at its best, its never going to attract anything more than rugby fans in the first place and diehards at that.

it needs to be a pill that the aru swallow the financial burden of but at the same time, i think a b team comp just played during an australian home and away comp would be the best option to limit that burden, its something that can be argued untill the cows come home, but thats the way it is.

a mate of mine had an idea today that they take what would be the aus a side, ad another 20 blokes who are fringe selections and take them to a camp wallaby time place for a few weeks with the national coach and super 14 coaches and play internal trials and tell them what they need to work on to get to the next level! at least it would be offering the next level some reward and understanding of were they stand in aus rugby at the moment

[AndyS]

The training squads normally pick a few of the fringe players now, but it is restricted to those with a realistic chance of making the Wallabies, i.e. it is still restricted to the S14. It doesn't really address the problem of bridging the club-S14 divide, or encourage young players to stick with Union. Might be a good initiative for the S14 teams in pre-season though - bring in some young potentials, over and above assessing possible signings. Might be worth doing post-season too...there's all the equipment and coaching staff there, why not run some advanced fitness and training programs for club players? Maybe they already do.

But while I can see your point about League, I can't see how maintaining the status quo can possibly address it when it is how we got into this situation in the first place. We will never keep the good young players when only a very select few can be offered even a semi-pro gig. Is it really any wonder they chose a career instead or, if they stick with the sporting dream, they go to the sport that actually makes them an offer? Even the Academy lads must be tempted when the choice is between game time in League or becoming a parade ground soldier in Union. I'll believe the Academy approach is the solution when I hear a schoolboys player in the tight five being touted as the next big thing and fought over for contracts. Otherwise, the system is distorted in favour of early maturing backs, and our forward strength will always suck.

But I guess what I struggle with most is, having got rugby into this position, the approach seems to be "don't rock the boat or antagonise anyone, let's just keep doing what we are doing". That would be fine if all the sports were going to respect battle lines, but they won't. They are all looking for growth, and it can only happen at Union's expense - it is going to be evolve and compete or die.

The ARU likes to talk about itself like it is in the entertainment "business", but any company that got itself into their current position could reasonably expect some boardroom carnage. They poach NRL players, half of which came from Union in the first place, but don't seem to question what that implies about the effectiveness of their talent identification and development programs. And they keep tip-toeing around the AFL, calling them "the elephant in the room", yet they never seem to ask themselves how the AFL got that way from being non-existant in 1986. I seriously doubt that either of those sports worry much about what they see in Union, and it annoys me because they should. Union is a sport with a genuine international presence, gets the bulk of it's revenues in international currencies and offers enormous opportunities for players. Frankly, it should be that both League and AFL keep looking over their shoulders, crapping themselves in case Union ever got it's domestic affairs in order. But I bet they don't.

Still, I guess we will see what happens in 2010. Expanding the S14 will hopefully make for more provincial cash, but it will be interesting to see how the suppporter bases react to the increased clash with NRL and AFL seasons. It will fair bugger up the schedule for Tests too, although at current earnings that would hardly be a huge loss. But it won't widen the player base that much, and won't do anything about the loss of young talent. I still think there has to be a solution there, based around the widening pool of channels opened up by digital TV. We would at least have the advantage that any new rugby comp would not be burdened by anti-siphoning, so going live to digital wouldn't be a problem. I'll bet the other sports won't be backward about coming forward.

[beige]

I would disagree on a couple of point about the Super 14 expansion (if it happens). I reckon it would help keep players in union as it gives non-Wallabies professional rugby for a full season and - assuming the proposed return "domestic" matches overlap with the June tests - it would allow fringe players to step up in to either the first team or at least get some game time.

However, I do see your point about the step up from club to Super 14. I think for me, and I'm guessing most people that argue against the ARC, it is not the concept of a national competition that I'm against - I just didn't like the ARC itself for various reasons posted by others here.

For what it's worth - and as an opportunity for shameless self-promotion () here's the article I posted in the blogs section on the topic last July. I would argue that the tide has shifted somewhat since then but my two cents at the time anyway... http://twf.com.au/blog.php?b=10

You hit the nail on the head though Andy: "Still, I guess we will see what happens in 2010."