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

[beige]

OK, well here's one - the new tv deal won't kick in until 2011 and the full season won't really kick in until 2012 because of the World Cup, right? Well, when it comes to launching a new professional sporting competition from nothing, we should look at what has worked. (I don't count Super 12 because that had been evolving for years - it just needed Murdoch money.)

Some of the most obvious success stories I can think of over the last couple of decades are from soccer; namely the J-League, Major League Soccer and the A-League. All were working from a base of small crowds, zero publicity, crappy player payments and no suitable pre-existing structure. They all found different competition models that worked for them but what they all had in common was that they spent years and a serious amount of money beforehand on market research and stakeholder engagement to figure out what would work for them.

Yes the J-League and MLS had to tweak their systems after a few years (and the A-League will probably have to as well) but at least they had a strong start to work from, rather than a weak one that they had to "build from".

So if you want a suggestion from me that's the best I can do. Rather than pouring money in to a big money pit because "we need to start with something", spend a serious amount of cash (but still considerably less than what the ARC lost) on getting the structure right first. Some people might be unhappy but at least we could be confident of getting the right model to move forward with. We have a couple of years to do it.

[AndyS]

"All were working from a base of small crowds, zero publicity, crappy player payments and no suitable pre-existing structure"

That certainly sounds well familiar, right enough! It is a good point, and while they did the CapGemini thing previously I don't think anyone would say they did enough to get everyone lined up.

You'd have to think they could have spent more time on the infrastructure side of the competition too, especially now they are all enamoured of private equity. If there were a place to trial that, surely it was in an entirely domestic competition. You'd've had up to eight different models trialled in different locations accessing non-ARU money, and if any of them went horribly wrong for some unforseen reason it wouldn't impact on your major revenue source. Instead, the ARU will be trotting it out for the first time for the Melbourne franchise...

[beige]

It is a good point, and while they did the CapGemini thing previously I don't think anyone would say they did enough to get everyone lined up...

They probably did the best they could with the mandate they were given but, to put it in perspective, the basic model that the A-League was based on came from 2 years and $750 000 worth of single-purpose research from the soccer equivalent of the Players Association (with O'Neill just adding the "one team, one town" proviso when the bidding started).

[AndyS]

I got the impression it was more about looking like they had a consensus, rather than actually getting one. It was certainly how the clubs painted it; that they had been presented with a fait accompli with no real scope to have a genuine input. That said, I think it could well be a herculean task to get everyone agreed (probably that Aegean one). I certainly doubt it could happen on purely philosophical grounds, so it would be a case of trying to align all the vested interests.

[Sheikh]

Soccer is very savvy about that kind of thing, and the start-up costs may have been underwritten by FIFA, which is a very rich organisation. The opportunity to open America and Japan (probably less so Australia and New Zealand) is significant to soccer, as they're two major markets which soccer didn't have a foothold in. FIFA gave the 1994 soccer world cup to the USA and 2002 was in Japan and Korea.

The IRB and ARU try to be professional, but the underlying structure is based on the old amateur base of the game. If the IRB were serious about improving rugby round the world the 2011 World Cup would have gone to Japan and 2015 would be in America.

But the ARU doesn't seem interested in changing the old amateur structure which gives 80% of the voting rights to NSW and Qld (well, 90% of the players are from there - so only 80% voting rights are a start!) and it's continued in this forum with people insisting that most teams should be based in NSW and Qld. That way lies a 'Super Shute Shield' as opposed to a national comp.

[beige]

The J-League certainly wasn't underwritten by FIFA and the initial PFA research that led to the A-League certainly wasn't either. With the MLS they had their World Cup winnings to work with, so you can argue that as a de-facto case, although the fact remains that they didn't start the MLS for another 2 years. Same point - years of money and research beforehand; suitable competition afterwards.

You might not get a consensus that everyone agrees with but at least you would have a solid, researched model and if people disagree then, well you did the due stakeholder consultation and have the numbers to back it up so good luck to them.

And yes, considering most of the players come from NSW and QLD, most of the teams probably should come from there. This is the thing, everyone has their own ideas about what should happen when what is really needed is proper research beforehand if anything like this is to be attempted.

[TOCC]

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!

seriously, there is no need to try and talk condescending because there point differs from yours, my argument this whole time was that the ARC in the form that it was presented was not the right form to take rugby forward at that level, especially in the heartland of Sydney and Brisbane. I believe i made this point perfectly clear on several occasions, you however have continued to press that i should then come up with the perfect alternative model to take rugby forward, i dont see why i should offer my view when you are just going to continue to attack me as you have.

Asking for the perfect 'ARC' model is a unrealistic demand to place on someone who is merely just a fellow rugby supporter expressing his opinion, do i have access to all the research and statistical data which would help formulat such a plan? do i have knowledge of each clubs view on the situation and there future capabilities? do i know the financial depth which is available and which sponsors are willing to come to the table?.. it goes on

You cant expect someone to come up with a plan if they dont know these sort of details andy, i would rather choose to not come up with a new format rather then basing my plan of a new comp on hearsay and a naive believe that i fully understand the rugby union landscape within Australia.

Seriously champ, i have made the point clear a few times now that i dont know what the solution is to rugby, im no rugby genius, i have however made it clear that for a competition to be succesful then it needs to involved the already estabilished rugby organisations such as club rugby. There is no disputing this, it has already been proven that the political power of club rugby has the ability to bring down anyone in the rugby union fraternity, whether this was the right decision or the wrong one is beside the point, what was made clear is that rugby cant be marginalised on the topic of a new competition.

[AndyS]

Apologies if it came across as condescending, and re-reading it today it does a bit.

No argument that the ARC was not the right model, otherwise it would still be running. There are many areas in which it could have and did trip up, but what I was hoping to generate was some discussion on how those deficiencies that are so readily identified might be remedied. I never asked for a "perfect" model because such a thing doesn't exist and never will. But you are obviously closer to the Brisbane scene than we are, so perhaps in a better position to give some insight into what might better suit them and get them involved. We heard a fair bit about Sydney club concerns, a lot naturally being financial, but the Brisbane clubs seemed to be either quieter about their objections or they were reported less here.

I derailed the discussion, and apologies again for that - let's just assume that a demon spake though my fingers yesterday. Back on point then, do you think an equity share in a GC or Brisbane based club would be enough to get Sunnybank and others behind a competition? I would have thought a GC (or more generically Coastal?) team would be a given if they felt they could attract private equity and support for a Super 15 bid. But how do the Brisbane Premier clubs split in terms of geography, support and financial robustness - would there need to be two clubs in Brisbane, and is there a natural split in terms of how the Premier clubs would align with two or three Q'ld teams?

[Action Hardcore]

Apologies if it came across as condescending, and re-reading it today it does a bit.

No argument that the ARC was not the right model, otherwise it would still be running. There are many areas in which it could have and did trip up, but what I was hoping to generate was some discussion on how those deficiencies that are so readily identified might be remedied. I never asked for a "perfect" model because such a thing doesn't exist and never will. But you are obviously closer to the Brisbane scene than we are, so perhaps in a better position to give some insight into what might better suit them and get them involved. We heard a fair bit about Sydney club concerns, a lot naturally being financial, but the Brisbane clubs seemed to be either quieter about their objections or they were reported less here.

I derailed the discussion, and apologies again for that - let's just assume that a demon spake though my fingers yesterday. Back on point then, do you think an equity share in a GC or Brisbane based club would be enough to get Sunnybank and others behind a competition? I would have thought a GC (or more generically Coastal?) team would be a given if they felt they could attract private equity and support for a Super 15 bid. But how do the Brisbane Premier clubs split in terms of geography, support and financial robustness - would there need to be two clubs in Brisbane, and is there a natural split in terms of how the Premier clubs would align with two or three Q'ld teams?

[TOCC]

Apologies if it came across as condescending, and re-reading it today it does a bit.

No argument that the ARC was not the right model, otherwise it would still be running. There are many areas in which it could have and did trip up, but what I was hoping to generate was some discussion on how those deficiencies that are so readily identified might be remedied. I never asked for a "perfect" model because such a thing doesn't exist and never will. But you are obviously closer to the Brisbane scene than we are, so perhaps in a better position to give some insight into what might better suit them and get them involved. We heard a fair bit about Sydney club concerns, a lot naturally being financial, but the Brisbane clubs seemed to be either quieter about their objections or they were reported less here.

I derailed the discussion, and apologies again for that - let's just assume that a demon spake though my fingers yesterday. Back on point then, do you think an equity share in a GC or Brisbane based club would be enough to get Sunnybank and others behind a competition? I would have thought a GC (or more generically Coastal?) team would be a given if they felt they could attract private equity and support for a Super 15 bid. But how do the Brisbane Premier clubs split in terms of geography, support and financial robustness - would there need to be two clubs in Brisbane, and is there a natural split in terms of how the Premier clubs would align with two or three Q'ld teams?

i think on the Southside of Brisbane you could actually get a geographical split with Souths, Easts and Sunnybank. North side however has older clubs ,they would be more reluctanct but it could be done.

[AndyS]

Hmmm, not ideal for numbers. My guess then would be a northern team owned by Brothers/GPS/Norths/Wests, a southern team owned by Souths/Easts/Sunnybank/University (north of the river, but south of the city centre?), and a coastal team owned by Breakers/Stingrays (with a bigger responsibility for regional rugby). Team names acceptable to all might be an interesting conversation when Norths and Souths gave already been used, but initially probably everything would given the accumulated history.

Any feel for how those splits would balance in terms of financial resources, facilities and competitive strengths?

[TOCC]

not ideal for numbers? 3 teams for the SEQ is probably ideal, a side on the northside, southside and Gold Coast...

Combining the breakers and stingrays would never work, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast are already amalgamated regions, If anything Sunshine Coast would miss out on a team, they havent exactly the player numbers or financial revenue to back a team.

Yet like i said, i dont know the political stance or the financial status of each club so i couldnt say who should combine with who or even which club should be promoted.

[AndyS]

I'd agree that 3 teams would probably be best - I was referring more to the number of clubs comprising each of the two Brisbane based teams not being ideal. But dubbing Uni "south" would give 4 clubs to each team, and with 12 Sydney based Premier clubs it would probably be similar to how the Sydney teams would form up.

It is all just thinking aloud, but I did wonder whether the other two would be problematic - we hear a bit about the GC but seldom of the SC. It does sound as though the SC would likely lose out, but my thinking was that they would simply start from an initial equal shareholding. Where they each went from there would then be up to them, and in the case of the SC they might make the decision that they simply wouldn't have the resources to do it themselves. If that were the case they could look to sponsorship or private equity, but if that wasn't forthcoming they might perhaps give the GC team operating control for a fixed return, sell the share outright or look to cash in by some other creative means. But whatever the outcome, they would at least have had the opportunity to participate and a say in the outcome. The same options would also be available to the clubs comprising the two Brisbane teams.

As I see it, even without knowing what shape any competition might take the political side of things will be an inevitable problem and different in each location. While the ideal would be to try and negate as much as possible, winners and losers are probably inevitable. At least if they were all to start with equal shares, the losers might not go away empty handed. In an ideal world of course, while the various club interests would act to keep each other in check, they would align in being best served by making the competition in general and their team in particular successful. Probably dreamin', but still....

[beige]

Yet like i said, i dont know the political stance or the financial status of each club so i couldnt say who should combine with who or even which club should be promoted.

Or what would be an appropriate way to include them for that matter. I mean just in Australia we've had:
- rugby's Canberra Vikings where a representative team (ACT) was sponsored by and named after an existing local club (Tuggeranong Vikings);
- AFL's Port Adelaide where an existing local club stepped up to national league level;
- rugby league's Canberra Raiders where an existing local club (Queanbeyan United) set up a completely new entity specifically for a national comp.

Again, none of us has enough knowledge to speculate on such things!

[AndyS]

I don't know about that last...I am sure more than a few lessons could be drawn from the Port Adelaide experience!