Super Rugby Expansion in Australia. Success or failure?

[Jets]

He did forget to mention that a lot of the Reds problems were caused by the force and the ARU's recruit policy.

The establiahment of the Force wasn't the start of the end of success for the Reds. The Reds were on a downward slide and the Force were offering something new that excited the players. I don't think you can blame the players or the Force for this. The Reds were soley to blame and the reason things didn't improve was because everyone seem to point the finger at the players, the ARU and the Force. The great thing that has happened at the Reds is that they are taking charge of their own future. They identified that they needed help and went to the ARU for assistence. They also recruited an established coach who Slaughter McCall had faith in to make the required changes on the field and to develop the squad. This has been a greater success than anyone could have imagined but is reward for making the tough calls. It really annoys me when people carry on about what a good job Phil Mooney did and how Link is getting results from his hard work. All I saw was a coach who had a plethra of talent that wasn't up to the job. (I hope one day that Phil makes it as a successful coach I just think he was elevated too early). The standards of the squad were not up to Super rugby level.

In regards to the Force I think that they are doing a good job over in the west. They always have good crowds, even when they played at Subiaco, in spite of the results. This is something that the Reds struggled with during their low times. If you look at the crowds they are all decked out in Force shirts too so they seem to have bought into the franchise. They are a long term prospect and they offer something different in an AFL city.

Player wise I think it will come. I know originally that the Force players were aligned to local clubs but this is a hinderence to the development of these established players. If you want to make the Wallaby squad after the Super season the coaches aren't going to be looking at local Pearth games they will look in Sydney, Brisbane or Canberra. Maybe in 10 years time this will not be the case but it is now. If you are offering a player from the east the chance to play for the Force they are more likely to say yes if they can go back to their local club team on the east coast.

Ok that was a bit of a rant.

 

[RedsHappy]

I don't like this at all.

TQ: I didn't greatly enjoy it either, but we Reds' fans have our crosses to bear. Let me make a point though: the notion that because we choose to sit in QLD and support the Reds (btw, I have only lived in Brisbane for 5 years, post Sydney, my original 'home town'), that we somehow now, after all the years of Reds' failure, should not critique other rugby State franchises that we see as potentially having the makings of heading the same way as the Reds pre-2010, is, well, it has to be said, a combination of the ridiculous and the irrational.

We all openly admit the Reds' multi-year failings, we are just all thrilled at their (so far) successful correction and never want to see anything like these awful problems, declines, and near-disasters happen anywhere else in Aus rugby.

 

[tranquility]

Rugby has been played in QLD since about 1880. We have had plenty of plateaus, and plenty of peaks. We have produced many Wallaby captains and have a proud and rich history. I remember quite well 'where our fucking lot came from'.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

RH, a couple of things.

1, You said the following:

the Force is a failure, a flop, at a business, code-building, and playing success level.

Now how exactly would you expect a WA rugby person to react to a statement like that? Firstly, you are presupposing a knowledge of the commercial viability and building of a rugby culture that over in QLD you'd likely have little idea about. The fact that many people turn out to watch the Force on a weekly basis would surely be an indication that there is a level of code building going on? Consider this: in the last game of the 2010 season, one marked by a lack of success on the paddock and a major injury toll, against the Crusaders, there was not a spare seat in the house (we won that game BTW). If that doesn't say something about the pulling power of the team and the flow on effects of commercial viability and code building, then I'm not sure what does. Those people have continued to turn up this year and the sponsors have continued their relationship with the team. Now if the Force was in such a parlous state, you'd expect it to be the opposite, wouldn't you?

2, In the time that the Force has existed, there have been at least two seasons when going into the last couple of rounds there was a chance that they could make finals. Up until 2010, the Force had enjoyed more success than the Reds over the same period. Indeed, since the Force came into the competition, it has an overall better record in S14 rugby (i.e. not counting this year) than the Reds. Now what does that say about the Reds if the Force were so hopeless on the paddock?

3, Sustained success does not happen over night. Consider the example of the Brisbane Lions in the AFL. It took a long time for them to be in any way properly competitive with the bigger teams from Victoria, South Australia or Western Australia. They were a minor code in an outpost. But there were steps taken over time in terms of players, coaching, a probably unnecessary merger with a poor club in Melbourne, venue etc. And as time went on, they became a powerful team and won three flags in a row. The Force have all the same issues that Brisbane did all those years ago. My point here is that you cannot reasonably expect instant success from a team in a town where the sport has as much room for development as rugby does here. The right guy was appointed coach at the Force's inception (perhaps not now, but it's too early to tell) and the right venue was selected for the 2010 season onwards. They are steps in the right direction.

4, Lumping the Brumbies into the same situation as the Force is laughable. They might be struggling at present, but they are still the most successful franchise in Super rugby history here. They broke the NSW/QLD hegemony for the everlasting benefit of the code in Australia.

5, As far as "having your cross to bear", spare me. You can't have a crack at the other franchises and their success or otherwise and be all "woe is me" when somebody has a shot back.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Rugby has been played in QLD since about 1880. We have had plenty of plateaus, and plenty of peaks. We have produced many Wallaby captains and have a proud and rich history. I remember quite well 'where our fucking lot came from'.

Nobody is doubting the tradition of the game in QLD. What I object to is a high handed attitude from some people over there about the code in WA, when Super rugby in QLD was a basket case for a time right up to last year. For all the chest beating (rightly) coming out of QLD this season, you blokes still haven't won anything yet.

I also don't want to be seen as having a shot at QLD or their fans. I'm an Aussie first and West Aussie second and thus want all our teams to be successful. I think it's great the Reds have been great the last couple of seasons.

 

[RedsHappy]

Not exactly, the ARU is a governing body and the unions are members, the membership is entirely voluntary which gives them access to entitlements(ie grants, IRB recognition etc) from the governing body. The Governing Body is still not legally empowered to directly involve themselves in decisions at the members level, until such a point in which the board votes for this to happen, even then the ARU could say no. The ARU didn't force the QRU clean-out, the QRU itself performed the clean-out through mass resignations and sackings, at which point the newly appointed board realising there futile situation invited the ARU to guarantee there financial health to avoid bankruptcy. Like i said, we can talk about the legal implications of corporate governance all day long, but the main point is that the ARU was at no point in a position to legally intervene in QRU affairs until invited to do so. Im not disputing the necessity of the 'intervention' or the benefits which came out of it, but blaming the ARU is taking the easy option, the QRU was more then guilty of plotting its own downfall.

TOCC, respectfully, I don't agree with much of that (legal and formal procedures) analysis above, but, OK, let's assume that I do, and the ARU sits there in open space responsible for strategic code development in Australia, yet utterly unable (for formal reasons) to intervene in the managerial and on-field quality of its major constituent parts that actually feed through and develop the national player and local fan base, etc, namely the State Unions.

Right, fine. Now, with that premise I would argue: in a modern, very high $ overhead, sporting code environment that is locked in an intensive national battle with other codes (often on a zero sum basis), and is crucially dependent for viability on gate and TV income, then such a national structure (as you say exists) is all of corporately archaic, commercially dangerous, cost inefficient (e.g. state-based investments could easily be irrationally duplicated), and (as has been shown by the QRU debacle, with somewhat similar slippery slopes building in at least Canberra and Sydney) strategically contrary to what is meant to be very core of the ARU's mission, namely the long-term health of the code in Australia. So TOCC, if indeed your argument is correct, I am doubly concerned as that governance model is IMO badly broken and dysfunctional in terms of what has actually evolved in the Australian rugby code since its arguable code peak in 2003.

 

[barbarian]

I am loving the debate here, both sides have pretty good arguments. I do want to object to one of your points RH, and it is this one:

Returning to my core point: I see no evidence whatsoever that the Force is even close to breaking out of general play day mediocrity to anything like the degree needed to comply with the 3 golden rules. I see no serious changes being made at the Force that rationally support any credible notion that such a break out is on the cusp of evolving, either at all, or quickly enough. I see eloquent excuses and good media management, and a few stars that to me seem lost in a poorly coached and managed galaxy. But I don't see, at this time, even a glimmer of the right changes in the making.

I see a lot of evidence that they are close to challenging. You paint the Force as struggling no-hopers who have zero chance of ever competing. But they should have beaten the Blues, who are a very good side. They were unlucky against the Sharks, and the scoreline was misleading in that clash. They have had two one-point losses to the Reds and Rebels, both of whom are decent sides.

A team like the Force aren't far away from 'breaking out'. Take two examples from this season- the Reds and Highlanders, both of whom have struggled in recent seasons. All of a sudden a couple of good new players and a bit of luck with injury and the bounce of the ball and they are right in finals contention. The Super 15 is a close competition and the Force will beat a few good sides this year, I have no doubt.

Providing they keep JOC (James O'Connor) they have the bones of a very good side- Pocock, Sharpe and JOC (James O'Connor) are arguably the three best players in Australia. With a centralised academy structure they will get a better share of the promising youngsters, and that should see them go a long way.

 

[Sandpit Fan]

RH, a couple of things.

3, Sustained success does not happen over night. Consider the example of the Brisbane Lions in the AFL. It took a long time for them to be in any way properly competitive with the bigger teams from Victoria, South Australia or Western Australia. They were a minor code in an outpost. But there were steps taken over time in terms of players, coaching, a probably unnecessary merger with a poor club in Melbourne, venue etc. And as time went on, they became a powerful team and won three flags in a row. The Force have all the same issues that Brisbane did all those years ago. My point here is that you cannot reasonably expect instant success from a team in a town where the sport has as much room for development as rugby does here. The right guy was appointed coach at the Force's inception (perhaps not now, but it's too early to tell) and the right venue was selected for the 2010 season onwards. They are steps in the right direction.

I feel The Brown Hornet has pretty much summed up the whole debate in this paragraph. Let's not forget the Lions started as the Brisbane Bears in the late 80's (I think). After a run that can only be described as pretty bloody ordinary, they won back to back premierships 13 or so years later.

If forums like these had been around in 1993, I'm sure there would have been the same arguments trotted out that we are seeing above, word for word. Now bloody AFL is a contender for fans/players/viewers in Qld, and a second team is kicking off on the Gold Coast. Without a long term view of the bigger picture, there would be none of that, and they would have let the team die off.

Having said all that, Perth will still be a tough ask, considering the population levels relative to Brisbane/Sydney/Melbourne, but helped along by the demographics. Good luck to them, the game must be grown (for the sake of TV marketing, never mind our wish to see more rugby), and there will never be QLD/NSW regional based teams, so where else would you put a team except Perth?

 

[barbarian]

The issue with comparisons to the AFL and NRL is both are one-country competitions with ways of regulating the spread of talent- salary cap, draft etc. Teams go in peaks and troughs. The Lions and Eagles are rubbish now after being dominant in 2000-03 and 2005-07 respectively.

Super Rugby is different, as there has been very little shift in the positions of the teams. Obviously there are some exceptions- the Bulls being the most obvious. But by and large the Crusaders, Blues, Waratahs, Sharks and Stormers have always been up the top, and the Reds, Cheetahs/Cats, Lions, Chiefs, Highlanders have been closer to the bottom.There is far less movement from year-to-year than in NRL and AFL.

The moral is if you are down the arse end of the table you can't just wear it and wait for a few choice draft picks or added buying power at the end of the season. You have to get off your arse and work it out, which is a task few teams have been able to do successfully.

 

[Gnostic]

Not exactly, the ARU is a governing body and the unions are members, the membership is entirely voluntary which gives them access to entitlements(ie grants, IRB recognition etc) from the governing body. The Governing Body is still not legally empowered to directly involve themselves in decisions at the members level, until such a point in which the board votes for this to happen, even then the ARU could say no.

The ARU didn't force the QRU clean-out, the QRU itself performed the clean-out through mass resignations and sackings, at which point the newly appointed board realising there futile situation invited the ARU to guarantee there financial health to avoid bankruptcy.

Like i said, we can talk about the legal implications of corporate governance all day long, but the main point is that the ARU was at no point in a position to legally intervene in QRU affairs until invited to do so. Im not disputing the necessity of the 'intervention' or the benefits which came out of it, but blaming the ARU is taking the easy option, the QRU was more then guilty of plotting its own downfall.

Sorry TOCC that is just a load. The ARU may well have no legal basis to just walk in but in reality the ARU just says , "We are taking over management on a temporary basis here is the contract for our term of Administration." The QRU says, "Pigs arse you are...." ARU says fine no cash for QRU this year....., unless of course you wish to reconsider your position on our offer of administration and assistance."

How do you think the ARU too over the board of the NSWRU during it period of admin. there? What is so wrong and negligent IMO, is that both unions went to the brink of failure before the ARU stepped in. To allow this a third time could well put the ARU in an onerous financial position.

Oh and it could to see my old sparring partner RH back. It was getting dull around here with only the mods to upset.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

Of course the Force is a failure. Until they can sustain themselves playerwise it cannot be considered otherwise. Ditto for ACT.

 

[James Buchanan]

Of course the Force is a failure. Until they can sustain themselves playerwise it cannot be considered otherwise. Ditto for ACT.

That's ridiculous. All this provincial parochialism recently has been complete nonsense. As long as there are enough players in Australia to support 5 Super Rugby teams, then there is a place for those 5 Rugby teams. This is not State of Origin, but playing for a professional team. Yes, it would be desirable to have further players being injected from Victoria, WA and even SA but ultimately there is one large pool which all the teams draw upon.

 

[TOCC]

Sorry TOCC that is just a load. The ARU may well have no legal basis to just walk in but in reality the ARU just says , "We are taking over management on a temporary basis here is the contract for our term of Administration." The QRU says, "Pigs arse you are...." ARU says fine no cash for QRU this year....., unless of course you wish to reconsider your position on our offer of administration and assistance."

How do you think the ARU too over the board of the NSWRU during it period of admin. there? What is so wrong and negligent IMO, is that both unions went to the brink of failure before the ARU stepped in. To allow this a third time could well put the ARU in an onerous financial position.

Gnostic im just explaining the legal implications, you can do what you want with that, but it not as simply a "load of shit" or nearly as simple as you seem to believe.

As for the financial state, there's more to that as well, the ARU would have been financially better off just to let the QRU bring in receivers, in both cases the QRU would have secured there finances and continued to operate. The inherit problem with receivers is that they are there to perform a quick turn around(ie liquidate the assets), which could have damaged the QRU 'strategically' long term, the ARU understands this, its why they didnt allow it to happen.

. So TOCC, if indeed your argument is correct, I am doubly concerned as that governance model is IMO badly broken and dysfunctional in terms of what has actually evolved in the Australian rugby code since its arguable code peak in 2003.

why do you think that the ARU has been pushing private enterprise onto the unions, because they realise that the current set up is indeed dysfunctional.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

Nobody is doubting the tradition of the game in QLD. What I object to is a high handed attitude from some people over there about the code in WA, when Super rugby in QLD was a basket case for a time right up to last year. For all the chest beating (rightly) coming out of QLD this season, you blokes still haven't won anything yet.

I also don't want to be seen as having a shot at QLD or their fans. I'm an Aussie first and West Aussie second and thus want all our teams to be successful. I think it's great the Reds have been great the last couple of seasons.

I am pretty sure we won the Super 8.

 

[Bowside]

I am pretty sure we won the Super 8.

Won the super 10, twice.

 

[cyclopath]

I am pretty sure we won the Super 8.

And Tonga beat the Wallabies in 1973, but that is pretty old history too!!
By the way, your point may have been mentioned more than once or a hundred times before, but a victory in a 15 years ago competition has little relevance, I would guess.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

Won the super 10, twice.

Lol, I was not sure if it was Super 8 or Super 10. Close.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

And Tonga beat the Wallabies in 1973, but that is pretty old history too!!
By the way, your point may have been mentioned more than once or a hundred times before, but a victory in a 15 years ago competition has little relevance, I would guess.

Yes and the Tahs have won? The Tahs are the Collingwood of Super rugby, although less successful.

 

[cyclopath]

Yes and the Tahs have won? The Tahs are the Collingwood of Super rugby, although less successful.

My point is that someone points that irrelevant fact out on an almost weekly basis, and it is kind of pointless, since the Super 8 / 10 was a vastly different comp to anything in the last decade or more. That was all. Not taking away from glorious Reds' achievements of the past.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

Fair enough.