Melbourne endorsed by ARU for inclusion in Super rugby competition

[beige]

If Melbourne getting the nod is such a blow to Western Sydney then obviously the NSWRU isn't doing its job. Why don't the Waratahs plays some more games out in that direction for a start?

Michael Cheika would be a good pick up.

[bunter]

I believe the player base for the Taranaki bid would be drawn from the central North island including Manawatu and Hawkes Bay. Pic of Yarrow Stadium in New Plymouth.

[jargan83]

Who knows they had a good competitive game against the Lions. I was worried for 69 minutes of that game.

Oh yay, they were competitive against a Lions "B" side for 69 minutes, yeah lets give them a franchise

[mudskipper]

I'm just disappointed that I'll wont get any more Brumbies more to Melbourne gibberish....

[jargan83]

If Melbourne getting the nod is such a blow to Western Sydney then obviously the NSWRU isn't doing its job. Why don't the Waratahs plays some more games out in that direction for a start?

Brumbies to Western Sydney

[TOCC]

I'm just disappointed that I'll wont get any more Brumbies more to Melbourne gibberish....

well actually muddy it could mean more, your assuming melbourne will win, if they dont i wouldnt be surprised to have them throw cash at the brumbies to move south

[mudskipper]

Brumbies to Western Sydney

We'll I could go to more home games...

[AndyS]

The question of depth is going to be kicked around a lot, and I can see most of the points, but the question I keep coming back to is whether there is any sensible alternative.

Say it goes to another country - what then happens in a few years time when they wish to expand further? Surely exactly the same situation will arise, because nothing will have changed. There will have been no additional opportunities for Australian players, so there will be no bigger a pool of Super players, and everyone will be saying that there is no depth. Moreover, the revenue split has now gone to one third each. Will that stand if the number of teams in each country is not even, or would we need to ship part of the Australian share to the county that wins the bid? I would have said the money would be better spent here, win or lose, rather than fund a team and develop players for another country.

Similarly for filling the team with foreign players - that won't be a cheap option, otherwise we wouldn't have such trouble filling marquee spots. In effect too, we would also be diverting money that could have been paying for the development of Australian players and I just don't see the logic in that. But say that is the path they take and are competitive as a result - then what? How will the ARU define "competitive enough", such that the concessions can be reduced? How will the fans react when the team, say, makes the final six and their big reward is that they have to shed two top players for the following year? And what will they do then with all the money that will liberate? Moreover, if foreign players are making them successful, how does the ARU tell less successful teams that they don't deserve the same advantages?

The point is well made about the shortsightedness of cancelling the ARC, particularly as it doesn't look like it will be back anytime soon. But even so, it is interesting to note that SA can only really field two strong sides and maybe scrape another together from the others. Frankly, that is not much different from here despite all the advantages of the the Currie Cup. So perhaps the big difference is in fact the number of Super Sides - NZ has had five for a long time, and four are competitive. SA has only had five for a short time, and as a result fewer are competitive (although the national team is looking pretty good). We only have four, and apparently have no depth at all. So how will that be helped or change if we give up the long term advantage of another team?

[beige]

I seem to remember a discussion about depth when another Australian team wanted to enter Super Rugby. This was rubbished and it was loudly proclaimed that they would "lose every game" they played that season.

The year was 1996 and the ACT Brumbies finished 5th in their first season.

[shasta]

Plus if the current game style of play continues we are never going to get a growing fan base here.

That's a bit of a surprise from someone who said ...........

Sorry but I'm glad the ELV's are gone, only taking it back into the 22 was a good thing to come out of it..................................Nothing in this game has changed, this is how it used to be before the ELV's has everyone forgotton already. I don't think we'd ever convert someone from another sport to solely watch rugby, you need to be brought up watching the sport to fully understand it.

The is no way the Kings should get it. Absolutely no way. The whole ARU board should be sacked if it happens.

So if the SARU & NZRU outvote the ARU on this issue you would want the ARU board sacked?

As I understood things the improbable outcome of a franchise from another country was only agreed to because the Saffas were stonewalling negotiations, possibly because of internal political stuff. The alternative at the time was for Aus & NZ to go it alone. Probably should've called their bluff, but I wouldn't see not doing that as a sacking offense.

[TommyM]

People are still doubting JOC at super 14 level even though he's played for the Wallabies.

Who is? Idiots...

[Working Class]

Shasta

If they were railroded by NZ and SA then no. That particular response was in relation to WelshRugbyFans comment about the decision is seemingly already made and the winner being the Kings. I still would have prefered to go it alone with NZ.

As for the ARC issue. Let's wait and see how Rugby's bid for Olympic status goes. If it happens with Olympic funding perhaps a future ARC like Championship isn't that much of a stretch.

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:23 ----------

Michael Cheika is a great coach. Would be a very good signing before they even sign one player. A Heineken Cup gives the old crebility a big boost.

And Biege I'll add you to the list of prospective Rioters.

[jargan83]

I still would have prefered to go it alone with NZ.

You're not the only one to have wanted to go down that route

[welshrugbyfan]

That's a bit of a surprise from someone who said ...........

I still stick by the fact you can't really convert people to Union from a sport they already love.

The comment about new fans is more for people who haven't got a chosen sport yet, the current style of play wouldn't attract them to our game at the moment.

No die hard Afl fan is going to switch codes, they love that stupid game to much. Although at the moment there's not much difference between the two. Bloody backs kicking the ball all the time.

Most mungo fans are never going to switch codes either. I'm talking about people who haven't chosen a 'code' to follow.

With the current style of play if you sat someone down who wasn't sure what code they should like Union would be coming out looking very confusing as a sport to follow.

---------- Post added at 16:13 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------

Oh yay, they were competitive against a Lions "B" side for 69 minutes, yeah lets give them a franchise

Yeah why not, hand them out like cupcakes at a 5 year old birthday party.

Five more franchises to go around as well.

2 teams, two divisions. Promotion and relegation. You'd get to see more competitive matches each week.

[AndyS]

"Promotion and relegation. You'd get to see more competitive matches each week"

That is the bit I always struggle with - why would you? If a team was second division, how many Wallabies do you think it would contain and what would happen to every promising youngster?

I can understand promotion/relegation at an international level (6N, 3N, ERC etc), where movement of players is not an option. But at a domestic level, it is only likely to be an absolute shambles. Picture 2008 - as funny as it would be, can you imagine Super rugby in Australia without either the Reds or Waratahs involved?