I think it is obvious that we would use the existing 4 teams, They could easily be rebranded, I mean surely the Waratahs would become the Sydney Waratahs. The issue you have is where do the other teams come from, you would hope that the Rebels could be resurrected , potentially add the Drua, you then have to come up with 2 other teams and common sense would dictate one each from NSW & QLD.
If one of those happens to be a Randwick then so be it, if they can come up with backers, maybe Sunnybank from QLD. or maybe you create two teams, who knows.
Play a domestic league and then look to cross over games with NZ and maybe Japan, but base it around your domestic product.
The issue is after 25 years of Super rugby were pretty much broke, a competition that was supposed to deliver untold riches and conquer foreign markets, has delivered pretty much the exact opposite a code on its arse.
I love the way rugby in Australia is still yet to come to the realisation that no matter what you do with the deckchairs, it won't stop the ship sinking. We have moved them so many times. The issue is far more structural; the current vessel is crippled and can't be recovered.
Every piece of what's being suggested to build a solution has been in play and available for years. If there was an obvious solution it would be an easy fix. The Club comp ideas are just fanciful. The Shute v Hopital shows that. There has been limited wider interest at best over the last few years even with Stan broadcasting. The key here is appealing to a new audience which means creating something new that will attract them. Entertaining a captive audience is no solution at all. Thats where we are at now and the central issue we are struggling to fix..
At some point maybe people need to accept that the existing pieces are the issue. They simply don't work together to build a viable solution. We need a lot of new pieces and a new creative solution.
Using the Brumbies as an example, they attract a consistent crowd of 8-9K (over the last few years) and get reasonable rating,. But is not enough and we have nothing available that is attracting extra supporters. So we we need a new product that keeps the existing audience but mainly attractive a new bunch of supporters.
If we keep to the logic that people follow teams, then that limited following will just transition to a new competition does not mean it will grow the supporter base. So likely if you include a Randwick you will just end up with that randwick limited supporter base. If you rebrand current team, you will likely lose supporters so you may as well start afresh with new teams. You could however use the current Unions based Super Rugby teams by creating new teams under or affiliated with them like what happened with the NRC which helped establish a supporter base quickly.
What needs to be avoided is the fact that Unions like to kill off National competitions to keep the Clubland status quo and powerbase. Thus far they have killed off the ARC and NRC. So the critics and press will be writing and saying on day one of anything new that it just a matter of time until the unions put it to the sword to the new competition. History will support their arguments which will put people off or slow growth.
So again, if you want credibility in anything new, it needs to be out of the grasp of the current structures and legacy issues. That means out of reach, control and influence of RA, the Unions and the entrenched establishment. It need to be under new, professional competent independent management. That means it won't be a Wallaby feeder or support product so won't be supported.
I believe Stan is willing to pay us half the current rate if we want to try different colours or styles of chairs.
