Super 15

[Scotty]

JON has talked about the expansion of the Super 14.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24320926-23217,00.html

Basically follows what I would like to see the most in an expanded competition (although I still like the idea of a trans-tasman comp, as I believe it would expand rugby more in this country). A round robin where every team plays each other (14 weeks) followed by a local round robin where NZ teams play each other, SA team each other etc. Giving us a 18 fixture competition with 6 team final series (probably 3 weeks). With 2 byes that means the comp would likely run for 23 weeks (March to August).

I don't like his chances of moving the inbound tours to August though. I can see a possible dying off of these tours - or having one tour window per year, alternating North/South each year.

 

[Thomond78]

So, run the tours up against the one bit of off-season players have and the start of the pre-season friendlies, the French Grand Vacance, the All-Ireland quarters and semis here, the start of the poofball Premiership, the Olympics and move the Currie Cup, all while getting the same ratings.

Easy as, John, just allow us to sort the world sporting calendar out around your ego once more, shall we? :

 

[Scotty]

Thommo,

The southern hemisphere has to have a major professional competition that can start creating more revenue, so it inevitably needs to be extended. The local derby round will help greatly in all three countries, and will lead to a lot of sold out stadiums.

JON does say that he 'hopes' the in bound tours can be moved to August, but I think he is probably really thinking 'we will have to sacrifice these tours'. Some Northern countries inability to send full strength sides has somewhat forced the SH hand in this.

The only way that I can see we can keep tours is by having a global season, but let's face it, the French and English aren't going to change their seasons, and it is too hot over summer for the SH sides (particularly SA and Oz) to move theirs.

What would you suggest if you were looking at expanding S14 into a more financially viable competition?

 

[formeropenside]

I'd be getting Japan involved before any more Aus teams if I was worried about money. And I would be much happier if we had a PI side in the comp as we used to in the Super 6 back in the day. Not so much about the money there but helping the game.

I am opposed to a 5th Aust Super team: we have one too many as it is and players are spread too thinly.

 

[Thomond78]

Thommo,

The southern hemisphere has to have a major professional competition that can start creating more revenue, so it inevitably needs to be extended. The local derby round will help greatly in all three countries, and will lead to a lot of sold out stadiums.

JON does say that he 'hopes' the in bound tours can be moved to August, but I think he is probably really thinking 'we will have to sacrifice these tours'. Some Northern countries inability to send full strength sides has somewhat forced the SH hand in this.

The only way that I can see we can keep tours is by having a global season, but let's face it, the French and English aren't going to change their seasons, and it is too hot over summer for the SH sides (particularly SA and Oz) to move theirs.

What would you suggest if you were looking at expanding S14 into a more financially viable competition?

Thing is, Scotty, I agree with your major premise about needing revenue, while disagreeing absolutely with the current form that's being taken.

The SH is trying to have an NH model of frequent local games. It doesn't work, not least because of geography. I'm pretty much a perfect test case; I've been in the SH for the last five weeks, and I only watched one game. Three, four years ago, I'd have made sure I watched all the games even in the NH. I'm bored by too much off the same stuff.

What you need is a return to the form that evolved under the pressure of distances and listening/viewing over a century, in the same way that the NH didn't add more games to the 6N to boost receipts. Bring back tours - two game ones, at the minimum, for those of us coming from the NH, three game minimum for the 3N. Midweeks will get the gate receipts up - the Lions prove that beyond all doubt - and the rarity value will mean more north and south of the line. It also leaves a perfect gap to integrate Argentina on a rolling 3N tour, worked around the Lions and the RWC.

 

[Jury]

I agree Thomo and I think it was Scorz who once suggested we do a mini tour thing in the Tri-N (or Four-N - or whatever it's going to evolve into) where all teams are based in one country and play some of the provinces. Not a bad idea I thought - actually it was a darn good one.

In saying that I've enjoyed this year's Tri-N for the weird and unpredictable results it has thrown up. It would be nice, however, hosting the Boks or the Aussies for longer than a game in the country (and vice versa).

 

[Scotty]

While I agree that the 3N is too long, and a little boring at times, this isn't actually about the 3N. This is about having a comp below internationals that doesn't require the national associations to prop it up.

I would prefer a trans-tasman comp for Aus and NZ with a Heiniken cup style comp including Japan, the PIs, Aus, NZ, SA and Arg, but it looks like this isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. This would have provided new and exciting mixes of teams in comps year in year out.

To increase revenue basically requires a growth of the game below international level. In Australia, the only way to do this is to compete with the likes of league to get the 'fringe rugby followers' to come to more games and watch more on tv (rather than just going to wallaby games, and watching those on tv - which would account for approximately 75% of my friends). My view is that we can only do this if we have a product that the general public can relate to and is easy to get a hold of. This means more Oz teams playing other Oz teams, and to a slightly lesser extent playing more NZ teams, and of course playing the games at a time when people can actually watch them.

With this proposal, all teams will have at least 9 home games and the Oz public will get to watch at least 15 games at a reasonable time (for each team). IMO this will lead to improved support for the S15 teams, and help build a fan base outside of the traditional rugby areas. The increased number of home games would also provide the opportunity for teams to play one home game a year in a different venue, to further increase rugby's exposure (eg Reds could play in Townsville, Waratahs in Newcastle etc). The increased revenue from gate receipts would lead to increased marketing budgets, and follow on with even greater exposure in the years to come.

Of course there will be an issue of Oz having enough quality players to man 5 professional teams, but allowing imports is the first step in making this work. I wouldn't be surprised if one more import per team was allowed when the 5th team comes into play. Eventually we would expect, with a sucessful and viable competition and increased exposure of rugby union as a sport that we (Oz) will generate more high quality players to (hopefully) jump league in the standing of Oz football codes (we may even be able to take a player or two off AFL).

With league in constant turmoil these days the time to expand rugby is now, and JON knows this.

 

[Blue]

Do we really need another marginal side in the Super comp? Because that is what it will be if its an Aus team. If it were Japan or a PI team at least its something new and interesting.

Melbourne WineSwines against the Force / Cheetahs etc? Boreathon.

 

[PaarlBok]

Think we should move back to the good old years. Scrap the 3 Nations & S14 rugby. Playing CC rugby and having a 4 test tour with midweek games at the same time. I think a four test tour in NZ from the Bokke this year would have been big in NZ. The same over here if we could have a four test Wallaby tour. Think the same in Aus with the All Blacks. That roots havent stop at all. We missing midweek touring matches a lot. Thats where our rugby are suffering. Wont take a brain breaker to see where our structure comes from. Everywhere and not just in the big places.

 

[Scotty]

Blue,

I'd be strongly against expanding outside the 3N countries until most of the teams can stand on their own two feet. IMO stretching the competition further geographically would be a big mistake.

A Japanese team might bring in a lot of corporate money, but I strongly doubt it will increase the crowd numbers of any of the existing teams. It will help rugby in Japan, but it will not help rugby in NZ, Oz or SA. We need to look after ourselves first, before becoming to benevolent.

 

[Scarfman]

One thing about the Australian rugby audience (at the ground and on TV): it's chock full of expatriots. If we played a game of rugby against Greece or Italy it would sell out. The 3N goes well here, no matter how boring it sometimes gets, because of all the Saffers and Kiwis.

 

[Moses]

Do we really need another marginal side in the Super comp? Because that is what it will be if its an Aus team.

We can call them the Lions... oh that's already taken

 

[Blue]

Do we really need another marginal side in the Super comp? Because that is what it will be if its an Aus team.

We can call them the Lions... oh that's already taken

What are you trying to say? Speak up son, I can't hear you.

Ok I will rephrase. We don't need another SA or Aus side.

Don't be so bloody defensive. It's just logical.