dru
Tim Horan (67)
I'm happy with your vision, but to me the attitude you have outlined is NSW-centric. More-so Sydney SRU-centric. For whatever reason, SRU clubs have never gotten behind the Waratahs. It isn't the case in Qld. And of course in Vic and WA the state Union franchise basically is the game pathway, to what extent the grass roots are naturally aligned to the franchise. In ACT you have a single club, the Vikings, who have (in the eyes of many) arrogated (assumed, taken control of) the Bumbies with only poorly formed resentment through traditional supporters of the other clubs.
Personally I'd prefer a model that was club based in NSW, but what happens elsewhere is far from clear and NSW would deserve everything if it followed that elsewhere had the shits with what NSW want and lampoon it from underneath. The rest of the rugby world would not deserve this, just the Sydney club element that has been rugby-xenophobic.
NSW clubs are as responsible for this mess as much as anyone.
QRU can respond positively to a revised structure that requires multiple teams from Qld but it is far from clear that this would be directly club based. Just think about the NRC. If the Brumbies are offered primacy, and ACT Rugby is offered funding for an alternate team, and the local development structures are held for those, maybe, maybe... perhaps not.
Force and Rebels I think could adjust to the change but IF what you want is forcing Force and Rebels to develop fundamentally locally, immediately, to protect NSW (and of course Qld) talent, and to see a plethora of clubs elevated from Sydney, well there will be more issues.
I'm not saying it shouldn't happen. Far from it I'm very likely to be enthusiastic about it. However if this leads to a "National" comp dominated by numbers from Sydney Clubs, and probably dominated in quality by the Brumbies - well the thinking is incomplete from the outset.
A solid point of agreement: Anything is better than Super.
