dru
David Wilson (68)
@
Liam Napier states that Australia cant sustain 5 competitve teams long term. This is a logical conclusion for a Kiwi journalist who has fed on the ARU presentation that actually says we are better off with three teams.
But I dont accept this as proven. It is correct insofar as, with the ARU as is, with the (lack of) pathways from grass root for players and coaches, and with the lack of promotion. But in this case Many actually doubt we can maintain 3. Or 2. Or anything. We are on a slippery slope, a slope we had somehow dodged. Untill the "cut a team" pushed us over.
I like Tew. This article once again shows a sensible head on a solid pair of shoulders. He is kind of bound to take on board Clyne and Pulver and their ARU assessment. But it imo provides false input.
Here are some things I would like Tew to take on board:
x it isnt simply 18 teams killing Soup, it is also the 4 conference system, and a draw that is either intentionally bizarre or drawn up in an Asylum.
x Australia needs a National footprint to survive. If SANZAR wants Australia involved in Soup it needs to find a mechanism for this.
x I'm happy to concede that within the current Soup setup and the ARU systems we couldnt manage a piss up in a brewery, let alone 5 competitive teams. BUT right now it may be necessary to play out "stronger as five". Until 2020. Trying to cut mid-season was an horrendous decission (which btw Tew shares culpability).
So, let's recognise the actual issues, without the ARU Salvadore Dali-esque filter, and seeing many Ausie fans almost longing for ARU to plunge off the abyss - in order for WRU/NZRU to fix it - (to me) both ludicrous and demeaning.
I think in this period of "commercial rationalisation" that other fundamentals should be considered across the SANZAR nations.
x NZ rugby $ is maxed out. At peak rugby.
x SA rugby $ is almost maxed out. Almost at peak rugby. By which I mean that there is penty of room to expand fan numbers, but that those numbers will increase in lower economic areas. This is happening against a deteriating national economy. So Rugby $ is more or les at peak, and there is considerable risk to the downside.
x Within the current Aus paradigm we are post-peak in rugby $ terms. Failing in a competitive market. But a change in paradigm opens massive opportunity. Rugby saturation is minimal. We only need to earn a few percentage points against our competition and the potential $ increase is huge. I'm going to call this the way I see it. Compared to SA and NZ, Australia is an economic juggernaut, a behemoth among minnows. An economy that invests heavily in sport. The opportunity is huge if we have the leadership and product to go after it. All the product requires imho is pathways and sensible management.
We dont need to "defeat" soccer, Aussie Rules and League. We just need to muscle in on a bit of turf.
SANZAR cant do much without a vibrant engaged ARU. But they should by now have reached the point of harsh language - understanding our real issues UNFILTERED by the muppets in the ARU.
Liam Napier states that Australia cant sustain 5 competitve teams long term. This is a logical conclusion for a Kiwi journalist who has fed on the ARU presentation that actually says we are better off with three teams.
But I dont accept this as proven. It is correct insofar as, with the ARU as is, with the (lack of) pathways from grass root for players and coaches, and with the lack of promotion. But in this case Many actually doubt we can maintain 3. Or 2. Or anything. We are on a slippery slope, a slope we had somehow dodged. Untill the "cut a team" pushed us over.
I like Tew. This article once again shows a sensible head on a solid pair of shoulders. He is kind of bound to take on board Clyne and Pulver and their ARU assessment. But it imo provides false input.
Here are some things I would like Tew to take on board:
x it isnt simply 18 teams killing Soup, it is also the 4 conference system, and a draw that is either intentionally bizarre or drawn up in an Asylum.
x Australia needs a National footprint to survive. If SANZAR wants Australia involved in Soup it needs to find a mechanism for this.
x I'm happy to concede that within the current Soup setup and the ARU systems we couldnt manage a piss up in a brewery, let alone 5 competitive teams. BUT right now it may be necessary to play out "stronger as five". Until 2020. Trying to cut mid-season was an horrendous decission (which btw Tew shares culpability).
So, let's recognise the actual issues, without the ARU Salvadore Dali-esque filter, and seeing many Ausie fans almost longing for ARU to plunge off the abyss - in order for WRU/NZRU to fix it - (to me) both ludicrous and demeaning.
I think in this period of "commercial rationalisation" that other fundamentals should be considered across the SANZAR nations.
x NZ rugby $ is maxed out. At peak rugby.
x SA rugby $ is almost maxed out. Almost at peak rugby. By which I mean that there is penty of room to expand fan numbers, but that those numbers will increase in lower economic areas. This is happening against a deteriating national economy. So Rugby $ is more or les at peak, and there is considerable risk to the downside.
x Within the current Aus paradigm we are post-peak in rugby $ terms. Failing in a competitive market. But a change in paradigm opens massive opportunity. Rugby saturation is minimal. We only need to earn a few percentage points against our competition and the potential $ increase is huge. I'm going to call this the way I see it. Compared to SA and NZ, Australia is an economic juggernaut, a behemoth among minnows. An economy that invests heavily in sport. The opportunity is huge if we have the leadership and product to go after it. All the product requires imho is pathways and sensible management.
We dont need to "defeat" soccer, Aussie Rules and League. We just need to muscle in on a bit of turf.
SANZAR cant do much without a vibrant engaged ARU. But they should by now have reached the point of harsh language - understanding our real issues UNFILTERED by the muppets in the ARU.
