Where to for Super Rugby?

[Quick Hands]

To me private equity investment probably the game changer, plus people like twiggy involved who are pushing Asia pacific agenda. I am not protective of RA so feel free to call out RA could be doing more and how so as open to understanding that as I was not holding a candle to RA but rather acknowledging their power and influence to do so actually less then NZRU.

.

Alas, the time for RA to be "doing more" has long passed. The time for them to be "doing more" (not just in the Pacific but in Australia too), was 20 years ago when media and public interest in the game was at an all time high, the Wallabies had come off a 1999 RWC win, RWC 2003 in Australia was an outstanding financial and popular success the Wallabies held the Bledisloe and Super Rugby was at the peak of its popularity.

That was the time to think strategically and plan for long term survival and prosperity - national club competition (not the ARC or NRC franchise models), junior club expansion into new areas as Sydney and Brisbane expanded and massive investment of $$$ into clubs across the country (just as the RFU did after RWC 2015).

Instead what we saw was short-term signings of league wingers on big $$$ and the contraction of the junior club footprint to the point where were barely now produce enough players to run a professional game. The ARU/RA existed from broadcast one agreement to another in the hope that endless growth in broadcast $$ would keep it all afloat.

It's a 20 year project to fix it all - a process which should have started 5-10 years ago but has still yet to begin (or even be acknowledged).

5 years ago I said that the new normal for the Wallabies would see us at the same level as Scotland and Argentina, with the occasional win against the stronger countries when everything clicked on the night.

 

[half]

Alas, the time for RA to be "doing more" has long passed. The time for them to be "doing more" (not just in the Pacific but in Australia too), was 20 years ago when media and public interest in the game was at an all time high, the Wallabies had come off a 1999 RWC win, RWC 2003 in Australia was an outstanding financial and popular success the Wallabies held the Bledisloe and Super Rugby was at the peak of its popularity.

That was the time to think strategically and plan for long term survival and prosperity - national club competition (not the ARC or NRC franchise models), junior club expansion into new areas as Sydney and Brisbane expanded and massive investment of $$$ into clubs across the country (just as the RFU did after RWC 2015).

Instead what we saw was short-term signings of league wingers on big $$$ and the contraction of the junior club footprint to the point where were barely now produce enough players to run a professional game. The ARU/RA existed from broadcast one agreement to another in the hope that endless growth in broadcast $$ would keep it all afloat.

It's a 20 year project to fix it all - a process which should have started 5-10 years ago but has still yet to begin (or even be acknowledged).

5 years ago I said that the new normal for the Wallabies would see us at the same level as Scotland and Argentina, with the occasional win against the stronger countries when everything clicked on the night.

Quick to understand my post you need to appreciate my ranking of various competitions and codes.


Level 1] AFL & NRL, both actively involved competition and structural changes.
Level 2 ] Cricket by itself, Australia wide and constant changes to formats and competitions.
Level 3] V8’s, Rugby, Australian Open Soccer, Indian and English cricket competitions, and BTW three versions of soccer, A-L / EPL / Champions league, V8’s and A-L lots of changes especially to teams and competitions.
Level 4] Netball, Basketball, Other Tennis, Golf, Formula 1, Tour D France, . Netball & Basketball in Australia are in constant change of teams, formats etc.
Level 5] Surfing, Iron Man, BMX, USA sports i.e. Basketball, Gridiron, Baseball, Horse Racing
Level 6] Everything else.

Rugby has slipped from close to a level 2 to running a risk of slipping down to level 4.

AFL, NRL, Cricket, A-L, Netball, Basketball, V8’s, are all constantly developing plans and analysing their formats looking to both expand and improve.

Rugby in Australia has never taken a national expansion approach, preferring to let NZ & SA do the heavy lifting.

Quick, lack of faith in the Australian game and competition, the moving especially in Sydney to favour GPS competition over suburban local park teams, allowing Sydney uni to ride rough shod over other teams etc.

The unanswered and mostly unasked question is can rugby survive in Australia, without major changes to its structures and formats and further to this has rugby reached such a state that its no longer capable of making major structural change as the fan base and broadcasters assumptions have us in constant decline needing the assistance of others to avoid falling into a level 4 position.

 

[Adam84]

Hardly a surprise, but the South African teams have aligned to the Pro14 under the Rainbow Cup for 2021. Seems like only a stopgap measure, 7 rounds isn’t a very long season.

 

[hoggy]

Quick to understand my post you need to appreciate my ranking of various competitions and codes.


Level 1] AFL & NRL, both actively involved competition and structural changes.
Level 2 ] Cricket by itself, Australia wide and constant changes to formats and competitions.
Level 3] V8’s, Rugby, Australian Open Soccer, Indian and English cricket competitions, and BTW three versions of soccer, A-L / EPL / Champions league, V8’s and A-L lots of changes especially to teams and competitions.
Level 4] Netball, Basketball, Other Tennis, Golf, Formula 1, Tour D France, . Netball & Basketball in Australia are in constant change of teams, formats etc.
Level 5] Surfing, Iron Man, BMX, USA sports i.e. Basketball, Gridiron, Baseball, Horse Racing
Level 6] Everything else.

Rugby has slipped from close to a level 2 to running a risk of slipping down to level 4.

AFL, NRL, Cricket, A-L, Netball, Basketball, V8’s, are all constantly developing plans and analysing their formats looking to both expand and improve.

Rugby in Australia has never taken a national expansion approach, preferring to let NZ & SA do the heavy lifting.

Quick, lack of faith in the Australian game and competition, the moving especially in Sydney to favour GPS competition over suburban local park teams, allowing Sydney uni to ride rough shod over other teams etc.

The unanswered and mostly unasked question is can rugby survive in Australia, without major changes to its structures and formats and further to this has rugby reached such a state that its no longer capable of making major structural change as the fan base and broadcasters assumptions have us in constant decline needing the assistance of others to avoid falling into a level 4 position.

We have needed a National approach for the last 20 years, I'm on the fence when it comes to Marinos being appointed to RA.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ustralia-chief-executive-20201223-p56pvz.html

But its these sort of statements that worry me."

" We have a new broadcast partner in Nine Entertainment Co, a Rugby World Cup bid for 2027, a British and Irish Lions tour on the horizon, new competition formats, an exciting Wallabies calendar, an Olympic Games for our sevens teams and a Rugby World Cup for our Wallaroos."

Where is the domestic footprint going to come from.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Quick to understand my post you need to appreciate my ranking of various competitions and codes.


Level 1] AFL & NRL, both actively involved competition and structural changes.
Level 2 ] Cricket by itself, Australia wide and constant changes to formats and competitions.
Level 3] V8’s, Rugby, Australian Open Soccer, Indian and English cricket competitions, and BTW three versions of soccer, A-L / EPL / Champions league, V8’s and A-L lots of changes especially to teams and competitions.
Level 4] Netball, Basketball, Other Tennis, Golf, Formula 1, Tour D France, . Netball & Basketball in Australia are in constant change of teams, formats etc.
Level 5] Surfing, Iron Man, BMX, USA sports i.e. Basketball, Gridiron, Baseball, Horse Racing
Level 6] Everything else.

Rugby has slipped from close to a level 2 to running a risk of slipping down to level 4.

AFL, NRL, Cricket, A-L, Netball, Basketball, V8’s, are all constantly developing plans and analysing their formats looking to both expand and improve.

Rugby in Australia has never taken a national expansion approach, preferring to let NZ & SA do the heavy lifting.

Quick, lack of faith in the Australian game and competition, the moving especially in Sydney to favour GPS competition over suburban local park teams, allowing Sydney uni to ride rough shod over other teams etc.

The unanswered and mostly unasked question is can rugby survive in Australia, without major changes to its structures and formats and further to this has rugby reached such a state that its no longer capable of making major structural change as the fan base and broadcasters assumptions have us in constant decline needing the assistance of others to avoid falling into a level 4 position.

Needs investment - think create the IPL of rugby with private equity investment - think big

 

[Merrow]

" We have a new broadcast partner in Nine Entertainment Co, a Rugby World Cup bid for 2027, a British and Irish Lions tour on the horizon, new competition formats, an exciting Wallabies calendar, an Olympic Games for our sevens teams and a Rugby World Cup for our Wallaroos."
Where is the domestic footprint going to come from.

It’s all of the above that helps to pay for grassroots/domestic footprint

 

[Rugbynutter39]

It’s all of the above that helps to pay for grassroots/domestic footprint

If they choose to use that revenue / profit to reinvest in grass roots.

Let’s not kid ourselves on basic acceptance by many that lack of investment in grass roots played a good part in where we are today which is left with bunch of rusted on (with lots of ex pat kiwis) following pro rugby with ratings that netball good chance of soon regularly beating.

Afl invested heavily decades ago in grass roots and national footprint - both of which rugby failed to successfully do in this country...which is why rugby not far away from irrelevance at the current trajectory...

 

[half]

Afl invested heavily decades ago in grass roots and national footprint - both of which rugby failed to successfully do in this country.which is why rugby not far away from irrelevance at the current trajectory.

Don't get me started on rugbies treatment of rugby juniors. My wife will come looking for you with an axe I get very angry about how badly rugby grassroots are run when compared to other codes.

Quick to understand my post you need to appreciate my ranking of various competitions and codes.


Level 1] AFL & NRL, both actively involved competition and structural changes.
Level 2 ] Cricket by itself, Australia wide and constant changes to formats and competitions.
Level 3] V8’s, Rugby, Australian Open Soccer, Indian and English cricket competitions, and BTW three versions of soccer, A-L / EPL / Champions league, V8’s and A-L lots of changes especially to teams and competitions.
Level 4] Netball, Basketball, Other Tennis, Golf, Formula 1, Tour D France, . Netball & Basketball in Australia are in constant change of teams, formats etc.
Level 5] Surfing, Iron Man, BMX, USA sports i.e. Basketball, Gridiron, Baseball, Horse Racing
Level 6] Everything else.

Rugby has slipped from close to a level 2 to running a risk of slipping down to level 4.

AFL, NRL, Cricket, A-L, Netball, Basketball, V8’s, are all constantly developing plans and analysing their formats looking to both expand and improve.

Rugby in Australia has never taken a national expansion approach, preferring to let NZ & SA do the heavy lifting.

Quick, lack of faith in the Australian game and competition, the moving especially in Sydney to favour GPS competition over suburban local park teams, allowing Sydney uni to ride rough shod over other teams etc.

The unanswered and mostly unasked question is can rugby survive in Australia, without major changes to its structures and formats and further to this has rugby reached such a state that its no longer capable of making major structural change as the fan base and broadcasters assumptions have us in constant decline needing the assistance of others to avoid falling into a level 4 position.

Puts on helmet, runs the risk of captain obvious comments, mixed with a lot of bias. So before you read the next bit, I understand the last few years ratings and crowds across most codes.

Also very much in line with my post pertaining to competitions and the need for structural change above.

AnyWho, I bemoan the lack of structural changes to many structures in rugby, arguably the professional competition is IMO the one where change is needed for future growth and revenue.

Sometime over the last few days FFA, released a detailed statement, confirming the separation between the professional game and the governing body has be finalised and signed off.

Meaning the A-League clubs will know run their own competition after a four year battle, the last 12 months has just been finalising the documentation.

RUGBY SHOULD AND SUPER RUGBY IN PARTICULAR, FROM TODAY WATCH THE OUTCOME OF THIS STRUCTURAL CHANGE WITH A VIEW TO COPY IF IT WORKS.

The link if you wish to read.

https://www.footballaustralia.com.a...Piav1if7gCKlcnUqS_3bqYiIXHoxRx0L_pdqnDxSL4uz4

In part SBS said

https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/what-independence-really-means-for-the-a-league

So, after years of acrimonious fighting that may have contributed to a general decline in the competition's following, we now have a situation where the clubs can look after their own affairs and the governing body, with the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup not that far away, can concentrate on the national teams and the game in general.
This is a seminal moment in the A-League's development.

 

[Adam84]

I’m yet to see how that will change the downward trajectory of the A-League

 

[Derpus]

A-league is doomed no matter what structure they implement because they play Z-grade bullshit that is essentially unwatchable.

 

[half]

Adam Derpus and others.

My post is not about the A-League and you're posts indicate you see it in that light or are saying rugby is better than soccer in Australia.

That is / was not the intention. Further its a trap many on this forum fall into, the inability to separate personal bias from the discussion.

Perhaps its my fault, my writing skills maybe sent the wrong message .

Below is from my post above on where I see the Australian sporting pyramid. Its from this my discussion or posts hopefully takes its shape.

After my pyramid I will hopefully better explain and just maybe a dispassionate discussion can take place on structures even if involves looking at Australian soccer structures.

Level 1] AFL & NRL, both actively involved competition and structural changes.
Level 2 ] Cricket by itself, Australia wide and constant changes to formats and competitions.
Level 3] V8’s, Rugby, Australian Open Soccer, Indian and English cricket competitions, and BTW three versions of soccer, A-L / EPL / Champions league, V8’s and A-L lots of changes especially to teams and competitions.
Level 4] Netball, Basketball, Other Tennis, Golf, Formula 1, Tour D France, . Netball & Basketball in Australia are in constant change of teams, formats etc.
Level 5] Surfing, Iron Man, BMX, USA sports i.e. Basketball, Gridiron, Baseball, Horse Racing
Level 6] Everything else..

My posting and deep deep deep in my soul belief is rugby in Australia needs to change its structures especially at the professional level.

Further I believe RA does not have either the capital and intercultural smarts nor the stakeholder support to make major structural change.

Additionally I have said we need to look overseas for models that may work in Australia for Australian rugby.

I have posted a number of times my belief the US local franchise models are what we should copy. Further of the models the one that best suits rugby in Australia is the MLS as they need to allow for internationals and world wide player transfers which is similar to any new structure in Australia.

Essentially the US models separate the governing body and the professional game.

What soccer has just announced is the separation of the governing body from the professional game.

Moreover the governing body will set the structure the professional competition needs to operate.

Its then for club owners to decide if they will play in the competition.

Remember dispassionate non bias discussion. But if you look at the owners of the A-League clubs aside from a couple of sides its a very impressive ownership group.

From a rugby viewpoint it will be interesting to see if a professional ownership group can grow their game.

If the new ownership model grows the A-League it then depends on how much growth and how quickly.

If this model has moderate success, or the decline continues it says separating the governing body from the professional game does not work so rugby stay away from it.

However what if they have a 400% increase within say 3 years , it screams rugby should copy.

AS I said in my original post and even highlighted it. Rugby especially Super Rugby should watch and see what happens and if it is a success then we should copy. In the meantime analysis what they have done.

 

[Adam84]

My post is not about the A-League and you're posts indicate you see it in that light or are saying rugby is better than soccer in Australia.

Nowhere did I say I think rugby is bette then soccer in Australia.

I just don’t think the new FFA/A-League arrangement will change the downward trajectory of the A-League, I don’t think rugby should spend too long watching what football does because I don’t think it sets a good benchmark to follow, nor does rugby for that matter.

Both codes have vastly different factors which influence their existence, even if the new ownership structure works for football, doesn’t mean it could be translated to rugby. II really don’t see how this change A -League change will lead to a 400% increase in 3 years.

 

[dru]

Perhaps its my fault, my writing skills maybe sent the wrong message .

Nope. Just as usual, you irritate people closer to the hierarchy than I am. Personally I think your voice has been cogent, erudite, and beyond anything I can think of, consistent.

I don’t know you’re right, half. But you sure as hell are a voice that needs to be heard.

oh, Apparently I should add - IMO.

 

[half]

....Thanks Dru,

Twill be interesting to see the outcome of a professional code formally run by their governing body.

Why this is so poignant, pertaining to rugby is twofold, first and obvious we are both tier three codes if you look at my pyramid of Australian codes. You don’t stay at tier three without growth. You slip to four and a four will move up to three and take you’re place.

Second and this is the most important aspect is my belief that a code struggling for media [applies to all tier three codes] struggling for revenue etc. Further codes effectively stuck with a similar management structure and outlook over time. The reasons are many, who are the key stakeholders, and what motivates these stakeholders.

Self interest and empire building often take hold and meaningful change requires a crisis.

Adam Smith in the wealth of nations, said when all boats rise wealth is created, better than some large ships.

With the governing body setting the rules of the game thereby having effective control on the outcome and inviting those interested to take part, fund and operate within the framework they created,-------- the governing body hugely expands the capital investment per team and brings management of a group of like-minded [competition growth focused] teams who need each other to grow their code.

I maintain and expect the ownership group of the A-League to have many times more smarts than the governing body. A quick look at the ownership group would or should terrify other codes or tier three and lower codes.

I researched the ownership group, and if the following between them cannot do a better job than an out-dated governing body model I will be very surprised. For the record this is their ownership group.

In brief, Brisbane owned by one of Indonesia’s leading families and said to be worth billions, Newcastle owner gone broke and new owner being sort, Central Coast the weakest owners but with huge European telecommunication experience, Wanders one of Australian wealthiest men worth over 600 million, Sydney FC owned by an overseas multi billionaire has his family run it in Australia, Melbourne Victory by arguably the best connected business groups in Melbourne, Melbourne City owned by the City Group they run four teams including Manchester City in England with billions in reserves, Adelaide owned by a group of well connected local business folk, Perth by Tong Sage a well respected and well connected Perth businessman, Wellington owned by arguably the scariest group includes three of NZ’s wealthiest people, the new Sydney team by a well connected business group and set up by a rugby rusted on hard core.

Drew soccer to achieve this end was prepared to near destroy itself and a three year civil war and a year of arguing over revenue splits.

However, they are where they are today and that ownership group above IMO over the next five years will turn their code around. Mean-while rugby sits on it's hands wanting NZ & SA to do the heavy lifting.

Drew in closing, we have before us now the model I have been suggesting rugby should follow for years now. Sadly its by another code. If we are smart and given they only just have control we should look to see what they achieve. If we slip to tier four getting people to commit funds to a declining competition will be near impossible.

As I posted earlier, this should be a must watch, needs detailed analysis, and most importantly a dispassionate review.

Cheers mate and thanks again for the kind words, much appreciated.

 

[Dan54]

Adam Derpus and others.



Additionally I have said we need to look overseas for models that may work in Australia for Australian rugby.

I have posted a number of times my belief the US local franchise models are what we should copy. Further of the models the one that best suits rugby in Australia is the MLS as they need to allow for internationals and world wide player transfers which is similar to any new structure in Australia.

Essentially the US models separate the governing body and the professional game.

.

Up to a point NZR is run the same. The NZR while being the overall controlling board, mainly operates the professional part of the game along with the Super clubs, and individual provincial boards run the amateur (and semi pro) side of the game ie: Auckland Rugby Board runs club rugby, junior rugby etc and Auckland Mitre 1o team, but the Blue's board is seperate entity completely, same as Canterbury and Crusaders etc. While the boards do use joint facilities where possble , they actually have cearly different roles to play in the rugby landscape.
One of the most interesting comments I heard early this (whoops last) year was the CEO of East Coast rugby , when asked what they need from NZR , she replied that they got most of support they needed in recourses etc, but then added if NZR failed to exist or support them in anyway, community rugby would just carry on as basically at amateur level everyone is involved solely for their love of the game, whether it players, coaches admin .
So I not saying it us the shining beacon or anything but just found that probably correct,myself and others who I have been involved in with rugby did for exactly that reason, and maybe they should be seperated a bit more.
QR at times when I was involved in club in Brisbane almost gave the impression they would run game in Qld , but maybe after they had finished with Reds business.

 

[Adam84]

In brief, Brisbane owned by one of Indonesia’s leading families and said to be worth billions, Newcastle owner gone broke and new owner being sort, Central Coast the weakest owners but with huge European telecommunication experience, Wanders one of Australian wealthiest men worth over 600 million, Sydney FC owned by an overseas multi billionaire has his family run it in Australia, Melbourne Victory by arguably the best connected business groups in Melbourne, Melbourne City owned by the City Group they run four teams including Manchester City in England with billions in reserves, Adelaide owned by a group of well connected local business folk, Perth by Tong Sage a well respected and well connected Perth businessman, Wellington owned by arguably the scariest group includes three of NZ’s wealthiest people, the new Sydney team by a well connected business group and set up by a rugby rusted on hard core.

Brisbane Roar has billionaire owners but the Roar also has a history of not paying rent on its training grounds, they fell out with the QRU when they trained at Ballymore due to unpaid bills, and they just lost their purpose built $10millon training facility in Logan due to a dispute over who pays for the water. Brisbane Roar has also given up at playing at Suncorp stadium due to poor crowds and rental cost and have moved out to Redcliffe, a suburban facility which has no corporate facilities. So the ‘Brisbane’ Roar are now based in the Gold Coast but play 100km north at Redcliffe.

Newcastle Jets owners have gone bankrupt twice in 5 years, first Nathan Tinkler and now the current owner, leaving $millions in debt behind which the other clubs will have to pay if a new owner isn’t willing to take the costs on. I understand the Central Coast Jets are also in risk of failing with the current owners unwilling to put forward any further money. There’s also the examples of Clive Palmer and what he did to Gold Coast United, that was an absolute PR disaster for the league.

I think the above is evidence that finding millionaires to own clubs in Australia is a double edged sword, it can either work out well in the example of Melbourne City, or fail badly. I also think the demographic of millionaires available to football who are willing to buy a club is much much larger then rugby. Football has a significantly larger supporter based domestically and internationally who are willing to put forward money, which is demonstrated in the number of foreign owners of A-League teams. It’s extremely difficult to see where these millionaires are for rugby that are willing to bankroll teams.

Instead I truly believe community ownership is the best example to be used, it’s a more sustainable model and more engaging with the local community. Critically It also removes the individual ego’s from the mix. Have a look at the Exeter Chiefs, who are collectively owned by members of the local community, they’ve risen from the doldrums of Division 4 to win the Premiership in English Rugby, they don’t have rich benefactors throwing cash around. In my opinion, that kind of model could be implemented to rugby if they wished to seperate professional rugby from the current ownership structure.

Globally from other sports you have examples like the Green Pay Packers, Real Madrid, Athletic Bilbao, FC Barcelona, Schalke 04, Bayern Munich who all employ a community ownership model.

 

[Derpus]

Half - my point was simply that i don't think you'll learn much observing the A-league not because i think Rugby is better than Football (i watch and play both) but because the A-league is just such poor quality relative to other available football (id argue its genuinely in with a shout for being among the worstin the developed world).

I can't see how they fix that either, when a player would earn more in third division British football than the A-league.

Rugby is a smaller game and there is less international competition meaning Super Rugby is still at least partially competitive.

 

[Adam84]

Half - my point was simply that i don't think you'll learn much observing the A-league not because i think Rugby is better than Football (i watch and play both) but because the A-league is just such poor quality relative to other available football (id argue its genuinely in with a shout for being among the worstin the developed world).

I can't see how they fix that either, when a player would earn more in third division British football than the A-league.

Rugby is a smaller game and there is less international competition meaning Super Rugby is still at least partially competitive.

I think the variables between the two codes differ so vastly, it’s hard to use one as an example or benchmark for the other to replicate. doesn’t make one any better or worse then the other.

 

[half]

Adam & Derpus

Let me see if this helps.

Both codes until recently had similar structures, which broadly speaking is as follows.

Local grassroots teams form into, Rugby Districts, Soccer Associations.

State based, Rugby Unions, Soccer Federations.

Both have professional competitions effectively controlled by their national bodies, Rugby Super Rugby, Soccer A-League.

Both have international match schedules and both have male and female international teams.

Both Rugby & Soccer, sit well behind the major codes in terms of media coverage and revenue and ratings.

Both codes have the desire to grow and both fear shrinkage.

Both codes but especially Soccer are being affected by Crickets expansion into more games and more club based short forms of Cricket.

Adam, just on the Real & GBP etc community teams, you mentioned, all these teams play in competitions that are light years ahead of their nearest competition and in the case of Real they have been bailed out numerous times by Spanish governments.

In Australia both Rugby & Soccer are in the process of trying to ensure they are around at least at their current status in say 30 years.

The A-League clubs and Soccer media have fort hard to separate themselves from their governing body. The reason they have and its interesting it kinda happen more by accident than a from the beginning want. BUT the A-League teams believe they can run a professional competition better than their governing body.

They sight, many overseas successful competitions run by the clubs and not their governing bodies.

As I have previously posted the sporting environment has changed with E-Games, X-Games and the growth of previously minor codes, with most Olympic sports struggling. Meaning the sporting landscape is increasingly changing.

To this end my belief is the best way for Rugby to both survive and expand is to develop a national based competition and to this end the best way to develop a strong national based competition is to have an independent competition run by the club owners in a format established by a national body.

Soccer has done this now and as I see it we need to watch and see if it works.

Any analysis needs to be facts based, with a dispassionate view, contain no bias and be used to benefit Rugby.

 

[Derpus]

So when the A-League continues to fail will you change your mind on implementing the kind of competition you described above? I just think it's a shit case study.

The idea sounds like it could work though. How would that work with centralised contracting? Isn't that supposed to have been one of the key features of teams like Scotland and Ireland really pulling themselves together. Also been a key feature of the kiwi system for a while.