I completely support this idea in theory, but a lot of the criticism being levelled at it is more than justified. I think everyone, even the ARU, would agree that this "third-tier" needs a free-to-air television presence, however, I also think everyone understands that the ARU needs cash, and Foxtel/Fox Sports are able to provide just that. If this was negotiated better, the ABC (or a commercial, free-to-air station) should have been given one broadcast a week, in the same time-slot as the current Shute Shield games, while Fox Sports would be given all other games of the round to broadcast. That way the ARU is able to get the money it desires (from a major sponsor like Foxtel) while simultaneously having at least some showing on free-to-air television.
I am going to wait until further details are announced before I jump to any conclusions, but from what I have read so far, this competition is a half-baked solution. It seems to me as if the competition will source established teams from existing rugby competitions e.g. the Shute Shield in Sydney. As I stated earlier, I am a huge fan of a third-tier, but this approach is incredibly stupid/impractical.
In my opinion there should be new franchises created - North Sydney, West Sydney, Sydney (representing the South and East), 2 teams from QLD, Melbourne, Western Australia/Perth and A.C.T/Monaro region. That's 8 teams, and depending on the success of each franchise/the competition in general, the competition could be expanded in future. To make them better managed, and better resourced, I would have them privately owned.
In addition, each team should have a "colts" team, which is under 20s, and play as a curtain raiser to the main game. This would provide yet another layer of development for up and comers, and, perhaps most importantly, improve our performance at the annual under 20s World Cup, where our recent performance has been disappointing to say the least.
In all honesty, this is a great stepping stone for Australian rugby, but I believe that the game in general would be better served by scrapping Super Rugby altogether, and engaging in a Heineken cup-like tournament with the top placed teams from the ITM and Currie cups respectively, or even better (and even more unrealistically), with the top few club teams from each country?
Could you imagine a situation where each capital city had one or more teams in this competition, and the top 2 or so nations competed - you could have Canterbury playing Toulon; Ospreys and Melbourne; or any other potential matchup you can dream of.
I know a lot of people are fundamentally opposed to this approach because of the perceived damages it will do to club rugby (e.g. Shute Shield), and to be honest, they're right; it will destroy club rugby, or at least greatly reduce the quality of it, the attention given to it, etc. I have two responses to this argument: Firstly, it's necessary collateral and justified by the benefits that would be brought by the introduction of such a competition; secondly, it's not as if club rugby is coming from a solid position anyway, interest/attention has wavered for years; Sydney University has destroyed club rugby in Sydney; and the quality in general is no where near the standards it was at before the professional era begun.
Club rugby clubs, like Gordon, Norths, Parramatta, Penrith etc. must all get used to the fact that they are effectively subbies clubs now. This whole "main division"/premier rugby rubbish needs to go. The existing Shute Shield competition should be incorporated into the NSW Suburban Rugby Union competition, and function as the new first grade competition, moving the existing first-division competition (featuring clubs like Old Iggies, Knox Old Boys, Balmain etc) to second division.
This development has come far too late - the ARC should never have been canned in 2007, though I admit it was planned/created poorly. This competition should have been introduced in 1995 when Rugby turned professional, or at the very least in 2003 when interest in Rugby was at an all-time high.
