JO'N - 'This is a long-haul turnaround … there is no short-term fix'

[James]

Look I'm fine with that setup TOCC and I'd be happy to watch it so long as at least some young players out of Perth get allocated to those Canberra/Brisbane/Sydney teams and that a realistic timeline is setup for future expansion. If thats what it has to be thats what it has to be. But there has to be something.

[AndyS]

Its ironic that you mention some people need to accept that rugby needs a ARC, because in all respect the best chance for a club championship to be started would be without a Perth Spirit side to save costs. A competition involving only Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra would be the best format that a comp could be kicked off, from there they would expand.........

I wouldnt even bother including Melbourne for the first two years, for the first two years i would keep it at strictly Brisbane, Canberra and Sydney........

After the first two years and if the comp proves itself to be a marketable product they sign a new and larger contract, at which point the inclusion of Melbourne and Perth could be made.

Which makes some sense, except that I would expect the same self-interests that have ruled to date will arise once again.

Say it all goes down that way - a few years in there was a marketable product based in Brisbane, Canberra and Sydney incorporating all the professional players from the 5 Super teams. Expansion gets suggested and it will be "we don't have the depth", "it will dilute the product", "where will all the extra players come from?", "look at all the extra travel/cost/aggravation/player welfare concerns/etc", "why not more clubs here instead 'cos this is the heartland?", etc, etc. Mind you, despite having ensured it remained as hard as possible, you could expect continued whinging about the other teams only taking players from the heartlands and not generating players of their own. But of this you can be certain - there is no way the initial ARC clubs would be voting for expansion any more than the 3 Super teams would have voted for the Force to be introduced (or probably the now 4 clubs would have for Melbourne, given their druthers). The only way the slow growth model from the East would work to create an actual national competition would be if the ARU controlled the whole thing, which is exactly what happened first time round. The Premier clubs got disenfranchised, it all got tarred with the "top-down management" brush, and the ARU themselves did a fairly half-arsed job because it was well down their list of priorities. It is exactly the sort of situation the Crawford report described as dysfunctional, but also the reason the ARU resists giving the Super clubs more autonomy. The kids with the toys don't want to share and adult supervision becomes necessary.

NRL and AFL are both based on club competitions, theres no reason why rugby couldnt follow a similar path

Actually, that is only true in part in the case of AFL. Since going professional clubs have been relocated/merged (almost forcibly) and the interstate clubs have been very pointedly representative clubs drawn from the WAFL/SANFL. I think the one exception was Port and the aggravation that caused was significant. The AFL continues to look at expansion (still notably not by just upping some local team), whilst still assessing the future of at least one original club and requiring several clubs to play matches well outside their historical locale. I wonder if that is really the future the long established, historically amateur RU clubs would wish upon themselves, given the angst that rises to the surface now every time amalgamation is mentioned.

[TOCC]

Which makes some sense, except that I would expect the same self-interests that have ruled to date will arise once again.

hmm the same self interests that lead to the addition of a S14 team in perth?

Say it all goes down that way - a few years in there was a marketable product based in Brisbane, Canberra and Sydney incorporating all the professional players from the 5 Super teams. Expansion gets suggested and it will be "we don't have the depth", "it will dilute the product", "where will all the extra players come from?", "look at all the extra travel/cost/aggravation/player welfare concerns/etc", "why not more clubs here instead 'cos this is the heartland?", etc, etc. Mind you, despite having ensured it remained as hard as possible, you could expect continued whinging about the other teams only taking players from the heartlands and not generating players of their own. But of this you can be certain - there is no way the initial ARC clubs would be voting for expansion any more than the 3 Super teams would have voted for the Force to be introduced (or probably the now 4 clubs would have for Melbourne, given their druthers). The only way the slow growth model from the East would work to create an actual national competition would be if the ARU controlled the whole thing, which is exactly what happened first time round. The Premier clubs got disenfranchised, it all got tarred with the "top-down management" brush, and the ARU themselves did a fairly half-arsed job because it was well down their list of priorities. It is exactly the sort of situation the Crawford report described as dysfunctional, but also the reason the ARU resists giving the Super clubs more autonomy. The kids with the toys don't want to share and adult supervision becomes necessary.

you seem to be misinterpreting what ive said, i never said give clubs control of the competition, what i have said that the clubs should have at least had a say in how the comp was to be formed, i recognise that giving control of the comp to the ARU is the logical way of running it, and trust me, clubs wont say no to expansion if it boosts the chance of extra broadcast income.

Actually, that is only true in part in the case of AFL. Since going professional clubs have been relocated/merged (almost forcibly) and the interstate clubs have been very pointedly representative clubs drawn from the WAFL/SANFL. I think the one exception was Port and the aggravation that caused was significant. The AFL continues to look at expansion (still notably not by just upping some local team), whilst still assessing the future of at least one original club and requiring several clubs to play matches well outside their historical locale. I wonder if that is really the future the long established, historically amateur RU clubs would wish upon themselves, given the angst that rises to the surface now every time amalgamation is mentioned.

no the club amalgamation issue isnt the same as it is with the NRL and AFL, both those leagues had 10 clubs based in there home cities Melbourne and Sydney, the rugby union club system would IMO see a max of 5 in sydney and 2 in brisbane.

Look I'm fine with that setup TOCC and I'd be happy to watch it so long as at least some young players out of Perth get allocated to those Canberra/Brisbane/Sydney teams and that a realistic timeline is setup for future expansion. If thats what it has to be thats what it has to be. But there has to be something.

i have been a supporter of getting a third tier this whole time, people seem to think since i was against the ARC model that i am against getting a third tier of semi-professional rugby in australia, thats ludicrous, as a rugby fan i obviously want to see more rugby, in saying that i want to see it run properly and i want to see games attracting fans and i dont want to read headlines similar to those plagueing the Gold Coast United, Brisbane Roar and Northern Fury A-League clubs.

[beige]

i have been a supporter of getting a third tier this whole time, people seem to think since i was against the ARC model that i am against getting a third tier of semi-professional rugby in australia, thats ludicrous, as a rugby fan i obviously want to see more rugby, in saying that i want to see it run properly and i want to see games attracting fans and i dont want to read headlines similar to those plagueing the Gold Coast United, Brisbane Roar and Northern Fury A-League clubs.

What he said.

Btw, while we're all having fun spouting our opinions, does anyone remember this?... http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-32102,00.html

[AndyS]

hmm the same self interests that lead to the addition of a S14 team in perth?

No, I was thinking more the same self-interests that said that any money spent on an ARC should have been spent "introducing new schools to rugby" [Sydney University]. The Premier clubs were asked for their input on the ARC at Cap Gemini and they were against it. They wanted a model that promoted a couple of selected clubs, so how do you then resolve the differences in opinion between that and a "rep club" model if you think that playing favourites would ultimately cause massive harm to the teams left behind? Someone has to make a call somewhere along the line and the ARU did, but did everyone then get in behind the decision?

Perhaps I have misinterpreted, but I thought your position was that "if the comp proves itself to be a marketable product they sign a new and larger contract" but that that would be based on the East Coast market as "WA contributes very little to broadcast revenue, so expanding to Perth so early doesn't really achieve anything but increase costs." I think that would certainly be a position that could be realistically argued, as there would be no way to definitively disprove it without actually going ahead. It would also be a very difficult position for the ARU to ignore unless the broadcaster had specifically stated that they would get $X now that the product was proven, but $XX if it also got expanded to include teams from other states. Even then, while Victoria wouldn't be much trouble, I could absolutely (and understandably) see them trying to avoid flying to Perth, especially if they have already established that any professionally contracted player in WA has to play in the East.

It is almost certainly me misunderstanding the point, but you've completely lost me on the club amalgamation issue. When you say that "NRL and AFL are both based on club competitions, [and] theres no reason why rugby couldnt follow a similar path", I would interpret that in the AFL context as the Premier clubs remaining as they are with some others introduced from outside - i.e an expansion of Premier rugby into a national comp, just as the VFL became the AFL. So if the rugby union club system would see a max of 5 in Sydney and 2 in Brisbane, they would either be all that remained of the existing Premier clubs (armaggedon for the amateurs) or they would be newly created clubs sitting above the existing clubs. If it is the latter then it is more of a Super rugby path. That said, either way would still result in a domestic competition structure where clubs tied to regional locations would play across a wide geography and be marketed across multiple states. If that is what you meant, FFS don't let beige hear you say that it makes them the same...

does anyone remember this?...

Actually no, I either missed or have forgotten that. Gees, there's been some machinations over this issue, hasn't there?

Ehh, the bit about the Vikings rings a bell....may have just been suffering subject weariness at the time and filtered most of it out.

[TOCC]

No, I was thinking more the same self-interests that said that any money spent on an ARC should have been spent "introducing new schools to rugby" [Sydney University]. The Premier clubs were asked for their input on the ARC at Cap Gemini and they were against it. They wanted a model that promoted a couple of selected clubs, so how do you then resolve the differences in opinion between that and a "rep club" model if you think that playing favourites would ultimately cause massive harm to the teams left behind? Someone has to make a call somewhere along the line and the ARU did, but did everyone then get in behind the decision?

Perhaps I have misinterpreted, but I thought your position was that "if the comp proves itself to be a marketable product they sign a new and larger contract" but that that would be based on the East Coast market as "WA contributes very little to broadcast revenue, so expanding to Perth so early doesn't really achieve anything but increase costs." I think that would certainly be a position that could be realistically argued, as there would be no way to definitively disprove it without actually going ahead. It would also be a very difficult position for the ARU to ignore unless the broadcaster had specifically stated that they would get $X now that the product was proven, but $XX if it also got expanded to include teams from other states. Even then, while Victoria wouldn't be much trouble, I could absolutely (and understandably) see them trying to avoid flying to Perth, especially if they have already established that any professionally contracted player in WA has to play in the East.

It is almost certainly me misunderstanding the point, but you've completely lost me on the club amalgamation issue. When you say that "NRL and AFL are both based on club competitions, [and] theres no reason why rugby couldnt follow a similar path", I would interpret that in the AFL context as the Premier clubs remaining as they are with some others introduced from outside - i.e an expansion of Premier rugby into a national comp, just as the VFL became the AFL. So if the rugby union club system would see a max of 5 in Sydney and 2 in Brisbane, they would either be all that remained of the existing Premier clubs (armaggedon for the amateurs) or they would be newly created clubs sitting above the existing clubs. If it is the latter then it is more of a Super rugby path. That said, either way would still result in a domestic competition structure where clubs tied to regional locations would play across a wide geography and be marketed across multiple states. If that is what you meant, FFS don't let beige hear you say that it makes them the same...

$5million on a program to introduce rugby to more schools would definetly have us in a better position today. Ive already said it a few times now Andys, i dont know what the makeup of the new comp should be, so arguing about 'promotion' and 'rep' clubs is irrelevant, i have continually said that a new comp should be formed in conjunction with club rugby.

Im going to use Sunnybank as a example here, Sunnybank whilst only a club is responsible for the whole southern corridor in Brisbane, this includes the growth areas like Logan. What they have done is set up junior feeder clubs in the region(browns plains etc) and alligned themelves with other clubs like Logan who dont have a premiership side to provide pathways for the top players. This was made easier by the fact they have a club turning $millions in profit every year.

Im not advocating that Sunnybank be promoted to a national comp, but what i am pointing out is that Sunnybank has enormous financial backing, player depth and facilities yet had no representation in the ARC, there players were actually sent down to play on the Gold Coast. The reason i advocate talking with clubs to set up a new competition, is that it minimises start up costs, Sunnybank is already a proven brand with supporters and facilities.

At the end of the day Andy, whilst from a perth spirit perspective the ARC might have been successful, from a QLDer and NSW person perspective it wasnt so great. The crowds in both QLD and NSW reflected this, NSW get larger crowds to club games then they were getting to a ARC local derby.

Anydy, we can argue all we want but we obviously have different perspectives on the topic, i want to see rugby thrive, but the model that the ARC was presented to QLD and NSW was not the right way to do so. I spoke to my mates about the ARC, my mates are rugby tragics who play for Souths in Brissie, the general consensus was that no one gave a shit, no one cared about some superficial team called the 'aces' or the 'tornadoes', to them it was a opportunity to get some cash to play rugby, other then that there was no interest whatsoever.

[Sheikh]

TOCC, I agree that $5 million spent on more rugby in schools would be better as the money spent on the old ARC was wasted. But if the ARU changed it's structure and got more money from the government, they could spend on both schools and a national competition.

BTW, where was the $5 million going to be spent? Solely in NSW/QLD, or in other states where $5 million would have made a significant difference.

[TOCC]

TOCC, I agree that $5 million spent on more rugby in schools would be better as the money spent on the old ARC was wasted. But if the ARU changed it's structure and got more money from the government, they could spend on both schools and a national competition.

BTW, where was the $5 million going to be spent? Solely in NSW/QLD, or in other states where $5 million would have made a significant difference.

mate, andy is the one talking about the $5million, there wasnt actually any formative plan in place to spend it

[mudskipper]

John O'Neill canned the Australia A squad 2009 which is essentially Australia's second tier.... and this year has been Crap with little depth available for the Wallabies...

I see a direct result here to what we have to work with now.

[Burgs]

The NZRU must just laugh their arses off at the state of Australia's Union shambles.

[TOCC]

The NZRU must just laugh their arses off at the state of Australia's Union shambles.

the same NZRU which posted a loss last year, and has budgeted for further losses this year and next, not to forget the $30million loss expected for the RWC in 2011.

NZRU has there own problems, the Air New Zealand Cup is undergoing changes yet again, they are culling 4 teams from the comp to try and cut costs, the Junior All Blacks are likely to be canned again in 2010, the New Zealand Ferns are still in the doldrums following there budget cuts.

Most of the provinces are running at losses, including the Canterbury, its definetly not rosy on the other side of the ditch either.

[AndyS]

TOCC, while I would agree in retrospect that the $5million could have been better spent on just about anything rather than any ARC without follow-through, that wasn't the point I was making. My observation was that the club in question went into the whole exercise with that attitude, which will continue to be the sort of self-interest that will blight this issue. If it was not their solution, it was always going to be the wrong solution.

But to summarise your position then, it seems you have no opinion about how a new comp should be structured but are simultaneously certain that there must exist a structure that is viable, in the best interests of Australian Rugby, involves the clubs and keeps all of them happy. Using your example of Sunnybank, you are not advocating that Sunnybank be promoted to a national comp but expect that the new comp could still access Sunnybanks enormous finacial backing, their player depth, their facilites and their supporters. That would be perfect, so if you haven't given any thought to the make-up of the new comp, please do. But make sure it also does those things for all the other Premier clubs in Brisbane and Sydney too, otherwise there will be squabbling and, dare I say it, self-interest.

When you can visualise such a structure, I'd be interested in discussing it further. But just to clarify, I don't think the ARC as was should be reinstated unchanged either. I think structurally it was correct in terms of where the teams were located, but the one big change I would make is that each ARC team would be initially owned by the regional Premier clubs in equal shares. What they then did with that ownership share would be up to them, but they would at least have had the opportunity to participate. My hope would be that equal ownership shares would give each Premier club involved equal weight, preventing the smaller clubs from being disenfranchised. And who knows - with them also then in line to share any future revenues, they might even get behind the comp!

[GIGS20]

My hope would be that equal ownership shares would give each Premier club involved equal weight, preventing the smaller clubs from being disenfranchised. And who knows - with them also then in line to share any future revenues, they might even get behind the comp!

not a bad idea Andy

[beige]

But to summarise your position then, it seems you have no opinion about how a new comp should be structured but are simultaneously certain that there must exist a structure that is viable, in the best interests of Australian Rugby, involves the clubs and keeps all of them happy. Using your example of Sunnybank, you are not advocating that Sunnybank be promoted to a national comp but expect that the new comp could still access Sunnybanks enormous finacial backing, their player depth, their facilites and their supporters. That would be perfect, so if you haven't given any thought to the make-up of the new comp, please do.

So you just challenged somebody who, like the rest of us, is just a supporter on a website to sit back with a pen and paper and come up with a perfect rugby competition to take Australian rugby forward? That's ridiculous! All any of us can ever do is express opinions because none of us is paid to come up with this stuff, none of us are close enough to positions of power to make it happen, and none of us have the resources to do the groundwork to get it right in the first place!

If people in much higher rugby places than us struggle so hard to get it right then I think you're asking a bit much by throwing out a challenge like that.

[AndyS]

Didn't say it had to be definitive - some ideas would do. There always seems to be plenty of people able to identify what doesn't/can't/was never going to work, but it doesn't make for a very satisfactory discussion.