Air NZ Cup to remain as 14 teams

[wjd23104]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redunderthebed @ Dec 12 2009, 03:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Hell yes culling 4 teams from the ANZ cup would be a disaster.[/b]

Um what the hell would you know? It would still be better than the ARU that had to get rid of their competition altogether because it was a financial mess (sound familiar?). Some thing has to be done.

Am i the only one who is sick of people claiming most of the country would be alienated by three teams that weren't in the top division just two or three years ago and one (northland) that only gets decent support if the NZRU says its going to drop them, get cut. Honestly the anger would be short lived. look at the Graham Henry saga. Sure some people still hate him but very few have been calling for Deans Lately, i wonder why?

Ultimately even if people don't like the NZRU they still like their team and watching rugby (first or second division)

 

[wjd23104]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Candyman @ Dec 12 2009, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Dec 12 2009, 08:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If they wanted to reduce the competition to 10 teams, I have no problem with that per-se.

What I had the problem with was the criteria they used. There should be only ONE criteria, performance on the field. Nothing else matters. This bullshit about population sizes, stadium sizes etc is just a load of ******** put up by the major unions to ensure their place in the competititon is not under threat.

Here is a simple formula of how the competititon could have been reduced to 10 teams, giving everyone fair and reasonable conditions under which to plan for their futures

2009 - 14 teams
Bottom two teams relegated to the Heartland Championship for the following season = 12 teams.

2010 - 12 teams
Bottom two teams relegated and the Heartland Championship winner is promoted = 11 teams.

2011 - 11 teams
Bottom two teams relegated and the Heartland Championship winner is promoted = 10 teams.

2012 onwards - 10 teams
Bottom team relegated and Heartland Championship winner promoted.
Second to bottom team and Heartland Championship losing finalist play promotion relegation, at the Heartland Team's home ground.[/b]

Why couldn't they just use a different format keep the same teams just split them up into a pool A and a Pool B play there round robin games then have like a quarter final, semi then final??
[/b][/quote]
Easy, because provincial Unions (Manawatu specifically) *****ed about that two asking how they could make a profit with only 3 or 4 home games.
Clearly the NZRU has thought this out more than you. They are trying to find a sensible system and all this NZRU bashing is misguided and poorly informed.

 

[William18]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Dec 13 2009, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (William18 @ Dec 12 2009, 12:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I remember the Tasman union being outraged that they didn't play every one once. Indeed, playing everyone once was one of the principles on which a new competition should be based. People didn't like that format and they got rid of it.[/b]

That is completely wrong. It was Auckland who complained bitterly that some teams had got a "free ride" by not playing top teams.

Also, most teams were happy with the 2006 and 2007 two-pool format of the ANZC. What they didn't like was the overly complicated playoff & repechage system.

They also did not like the 2008 format that had a single pool of 14 but with only 10 rounds, which means that each team missed playing three other teams. The NZRU also retained the stupid repechage system when THAT is what needed to be changed

My proposal (which I submitted to the NZRU but never even got the courtesy of a reply) was to divide them into two pools, seeded from the previous year's competititon. With seven in each pool, there would be three matches in each pool each week, with the "bye" teams in each pool playing each other in a cross pool match.

After the completion of the round robins, the top 6 would go into a modified MacIntyre playoff system for the Air New Zealand Cup, and the bottom eight would go into a straight knockout for the "Air New Zealand Plate"

You can find a detailed description of the competititon format I proposed for the NZRU here;

http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/index.p...st&p=410115
[/b][/quote]
There was no repechage in 2008. Fair enough, your idea is just the 2006 format without the repechage. I still don't like it though, I still don't think a country of 4 million can sustain a 14 team professional competition.

i also think that while your format may be well supported now, in a few years unions would start to moan again.

 

[William18]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wjd23104 @ Dec 13 2009, 09:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redunderthebed @ Dec 12 2009, 03:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hell yes culling 4 teams from the ANZ cup would be a disaster.[/b]

Um what the hell would you know? It would still be better than the ARU that had to get rid of their competition altogether because it was a financial mess (sound familiar?). Some thing has to be done.

Am i the only one who is sick of people claiming most of the country would be alienated by three teams that weren't in the top division just two or three years ago and one (northland) that only gets decent support if the NZRU says its going to drop them, get cut. Honestly the anger would be short lived. look at the Graham Henry saga. Sure some people still hate him but very few have been calling for Deans Lately, i wonder why?

Ultimately even if people don't like the NZRU they still like their team and watching rugby (first or second division)
[/b][/quote]

The level of alienation has certainly been exaggerated. Counties Manakau only got 3,000 to quite possibly their final home game ever against the competition leaders. Some teams (I think) got more signatures on petitions than bums on seats to their final game.

I would ask people whether rugby in this country was stronger with a 10 team ANZC or a 14 team competition. The answer is easy.

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (William18 @ Dec 13 2009, 09:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

The level of alienation has certainly been exaggerated. Counties Manakau only got 3,000 to quite possibly their final home game ever against the competition leaders. Some teams (I think) got more signatures on petitions than bums on seats to their final game.

I would ask people whether rugby in this country was stronger with a 10 team ANZC or a 14 team competition. The answer is easy.[/b]

Bums on seats is not the only measure.

Did it occur to you that some actually support their teams by watching them play live on tv? They support by paying their SkyTV subnscriptions and buying the sponsors' products.

And what about a union like Northland, whose supporters are spread over 3 million hectares, and where it is five hour drive from the extremities to Whangarei. Hard to get a full house there but they often get close to it.

No such excuses for Auckland though, who have a million people within a two-hour train ride of Eden Park, yet they drew a LOWER average crowd than Tasman, who have less than one twelfth of the population, and those spread over two provinces that together occupy 1.5 million hectares.

To get 10,000 people to Trafalger Park means that one person in six went to matches every weekend. If Auckland could boast just HALF of that strike rate, they would fill a 90,000 seat stadium every weekend!!

 

[Jethro]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wjd23104 @ Dec 13 2009, 07:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redunderthebed @ Dec 12 2009, 03:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hell yes culling 4 teams from the ANZ cup would be a disaster.[/b]

Um what the hell would you know? It would still be better than the ARU that had to get rid of their competition altogether because it was a financial mess (sound familiar?). Some thing has to be done.

Am i the only one who is sick of people claiming most of the country would be alienated by three teams that weren't in the top division just two or three years ago and one (northland) that only gets decent support if the NZRU says its going to drop them, get cut. Honestly the anger would be short lived. look at the Graham Henry saga. Sure some people still hate him but very few have been calling for Deans Lately, i wonder why?

Ultimately even if people don't like the NZRU they still like their team and watching rugby (first or second division)
[/b][/quote]

******** HB have been getting solid humbers to games with no fear of being demoted solely through the ability to match most other ANZC teams on a weekly basis. The ARU cut the ARC competition due to JON not likeing it as it wasn't his brain child. The NZRU have simply sold out kiwi rugby to prop up an ailing situation here in Oz that is seeing the regions switch off the game due to the big city mentality of the various State unions.

I note they are now talking about further watering down eligability laws in Oz due to the fact that there is bugger all chance of producing five competitive teams from the ever decreasing ranks of club players. O'Neil quite simply has been a disaster for the game in the country.

The NZRU's first and foremost requirement is to promote and build the game in KLiwiland, you do not do that by alienating a quarter of the population. Or do you want to go back to days of teams like HB getting crowds in the range of 800 for games?

The NZRU need to give the ANZC a chance, as smartcooky pointed out the first couple of seasons confused the hell out of supporters, this year with a simply round robin, semis, and finals the hinterland crowds are showing up. Yes lets destroy that so we can supply the Oz S15 franchises with players.

 

[William18]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Dec 13 2009, 01:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (William18 @ Dec 13 2009, 09:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The level of alienation has certainly been exaggerated. Counties Manakau only got 3,000 to quite possibly their final home game ever against the competition leaders. Some teams (I think) got more signatures on petitions than bums on seats to their final game.

I would ask people whether rugby in this country was stronger with a 10 team ANZC or a 14 team competition. The answer is easy.[/b]

Bums on seats is not the only measure.

Did it occur to you that some actually support their teams by watching them play live on tv? They support by paying their SkyTV subnscriptions and buying the sponsors' products.

And what about a union like Northland, whose supporters are spread over 3 million hectares, and where it is five hour drive from the extremities to Whangarei. Hard to get a full house there but they often get close to it.

No such excuses for Auckland though, who have a million people within a two-hour train ride of Eden Park, yet they drew a LOWER average crowd than Tasman, who have less than one twelfth of the population, and those spread over two provinces that together occupy 1.5 million hectares.

To get 10,000 people to Trafalger Park means that one person in six went to matches every weekend. If Auckland could boast just HALF of that strike rate, they would fill a 90,000 seat stadium every weekend!!
[/b][/quote]
No it is not the only measure. I will be the first to admit that my team Wellington got incredibly disappointing crowds this year. The only unions who can say that they got good crowds are probably Manawatu and Hawkes Bay. Obviously, I don't expect people to just pop down from Kaitaia to watch Northland play. I just think that if a province like Northland or Counties Manakau wanted to make a statement that they are well supported then they could have got bigger crowds. Watching a game on TV does a very small amount to support your team, compared to being there.

Your figures aren't also quite correct. It assumes that Auckland's population is about 1.1 million. That is actually less than the population of greater Auckland. However, to get the population of Auckland we must take away Rodney, North Shore, Counties, Franklin etc. The population of the Auckland team wouldn't be too much more than 500,000. Not that I think their crowds are good but you can't expect a massive city to have the same fan/population strike rate as a small town.

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jethro @ Dec 13 2009, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

The ARU cut the ARC competition due to JON not likeing it as it wasn't his brain child. The NZRU have simply sold out kiwi rugby to prop up an ailing situation here in Oz that is seeing the regions switch off the game due to the big city mentality of the various State unions.

I note they are now talking about further watering down eligability laws in Oz due to the fact that there is bugger all chance of producing five competitive teams from the ever decreasing ranks of club players. O'Neil quite simply has been a disaster for the game in the country.

The NZRU's first and foremost requirement is to promote and build the game in KLiwiland, you do not do that by alienating a quarter of the population. Or do you want to go back to days of teams like HB getting crowds in the range of 800 for games?

The NZRU need to give the ANZC a chance, as smartcooky pointed out the first couple of seasons confused the hell out of supporters, this year with a simply round robin, semis, and finals the hinterland crowds are showing up. Yes lets destroy that so we can supply the Oz S15 franchises with players.[/b]

Your comment about the ARC is absolutley right on the money Jethro. The ARC was Gary Flowers' baby, and nothing would have given a vindictive prick like Ol' Possum Head more pleaseure than to axe the ARC as virtually his first act in charge.

The ARC lost AUD$5m in its first and only year of operation. It sounds a lot, but that is much less than what it has cost setting up the new fifth Australian franchise, the Melbourne Rebels. On top of that, the annual wages bill for a typical S14 franchise is about 6 million.

Frankly, an eight team ARC at AUD$625,000 per team is much better value for money than a weak fifth franchise full of imports because Aussie doesn't have the depth to support it.

 

[William18]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jethro @ Dec 13 2009, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wjd23104 @ Dec 13 2009, 07:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redunderthebed @ Dec 12 2009, 03:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hell yes culling 4 teams from the ANZ cup would be a disaster.[/b]

Um what the hell would you know? It would still be better than the ARU that had to get rid of their competition altogether because it was a financial mess (sound familiar?). Some thing has to be done.

Am i the only one who is sick of people claiming most of the country would be alienated by three teams that weren't in the top division just two or three years ago and one (northland) that only gets decent support if the NZRU says its going to drop them, get cut. Honestly the anger would be short lived. look at the Graham Henry saga. Sure some people still hate him but very few have been calling for Deans Lately, i wonder why?

Ultimately even if people don't like the NZRU they still like their team and watching rugby (first or second division)
[/b][/quote]

******** HB have been getting solid humbers to games with no fear of being demoted solely through the ability to match most other ANZC teams on a weekly basis. The ARU cut the ARC competition due to JON not likeing it as it wasn't his brain child. The NZRU have simply sold out kiwi rugby to prop up an ailing situation here in Oz that is seeing the regions switch off the game due to the big city mentality of the various State unions.

I note they are now talking about further watering down eligability laws in Oz due to the fact that there is bugger all chance of producing five competitive teams from the ever decreasing ranks of club players. O'Neil quite simply has been a disaster for the game in the country.

The NZRU's first and foremost requirement is to promote and build the game in KLiwiland, you do not do that by alienating a quarter of the population. Or do you want to go back to days of teams like HB getting crowds in the range of 800 for games?

The NZRU need to give the ANZC a chance, as smartcooky pointed out the first couple of seasons confused the hell out of supporters, this year with a simply round robin, semis, and finals the hinterland crowds are showing up. Yes lets destroy that so we can supply the Oz S15 franchises with players.
[/b][/quote]
I don't know much about the ARC but your reasoning sounds like BS to me. Can you expect them to keep a competition going which lost almost 5 million Australian? Where were they going to find the money to pay for it? On the trees out back? The NZRU must help out Australia because Australia brings in massive amounts of revenue to the NZRU. The Bledisloe tests are the biggest games of the year. Super 15 dies, so does the Bledisloe, so does a big chunk of NZRU finances and then there is less money to spread around developing the game here. Should we just ditch super rugby and just ditch Australia?

The reason Hawkes Bay is in the first division and doing so well is simple. They have great fans who get behind their team, they produce their own players and are holding on to them now they have their own team. I don't have the crowds for every game of the same but, as I understand, the average crowds only went up a few 100 nation wide. T^he success of this year's competition has been too far exaggerated.

 

[Candyman]

All this negative Sh*t at each other is really ******* me off!!! Until you work for the NZRFU Don't go round saying things like "What the hell do you know" "They have thought more than you" etc etc it is the bull!! if you read some of these posts they are suggestion not what they should do!! So read a bit closer before posting!!

 

[Jethro]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (William18 @ Dec 13 2009, 01:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jethro @ Dec 13 2009, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wjd23104 @ Dec 13 2009, 07:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redunderthebed @ Dec 12 2009, 03:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hell yes culling 4 teams from the ANZ cup would be a disaster.[/b]

Um what the hell would you know? It would still be better than the ARU that had to get rid of their competition altogether because it was a financial mess (sound familiar?). Some thing has to be done.

Am i the only one who is sick of people claiming most of the country would be alienated by three teams that weren't in the top division just two or three years ago and one (northland) that only gets decent support if the NZRU says its going to drop them, get cut. Honestly the anger would be short lived. look at the Graham Henry saga. Sure some people still hate him but very few have been calling for Deans Lately, i wonder why?

Ultimately even if people don't like the NZRU they still like their team and watching rugby (first or second division)
[/b][/quote]

******** HB have been getting solid humbers to games with no fear of being demoted solely through the ability to match most other ANZC teams on a weekly basis. The ARU cut the ARC competition due to JON not likeing it as it wasn't his brain child. The NZRU have simply sold out kiwi rugby to prop up an ailing situation here in Oz that is seeing the regions switch off the game due to the big city mentality of the various State unions.

I note they are now talking about further watering down eligability laws in Oz due to the fact that there is bugger all chance of producing five competitive teams from the ever decreasing ranks of club players. O'Neil quite simply has been a disaster for the game in the country.

The NZRU's first and foremost requirement is to promote and build the game in KLiwiland, you do not do that by alienating a quarter of the population. Or do you want to go back to days of teams like HB getting crowds in the range of 800 for games?

The NZRU need to give the ANZC a chance, as smartcooky pointed out the first couple of seasons confused the hell out of supporters, this year with a simply round robin, semis, and finals the hinterland crowds are showing up. Yes lets destroy that so we can supply the Oz S15 franchises with players.
[/b][/quote]
I don't know much about the ARC but your reasoning sounds like BS to me. Can you expect them to keep a competition going which lost almost 5 million Australian? Where were they going to find the money to pay for it? On the trees out back? The NZRU must help out Australia because Australia brings in massive amounts of revenue to the NZRU. The Bledisloe tests are the biggest games of the year. Super 15 dies, so does the Bledisloe, so does a big chunk of NZRU finances and then there is less money to spread around developing the game here. Should we just ditch super rugby and just ditch Australia?

The reason Hawkes Bay is in the first division and doing so well is simple. They have great fans who get behind their team, they produce their own players and are holding on to them now they have their own team. I don't have the crowds for every game of the same but, as I understand, the average crowds only went up a few 100 nation wide. T^he success of this year's competition has been too far exaggerated.
[/b][/quote]


The ARC lost money in it's first and only year of operation. It was then slashed when JON returned to the ARU ranks, after a successful term with Soccer Oz that just happened to coincide with the national team scoring some major international success. The Melbourne Storm lose approx $6 million a year and they are highly competitive in the NRL, will JON cut the Melbourne Rebels when they return similar financial results? The answer is no.

I'm just constantly amazed at the belief across the Tasman that Union is returning rivers of gold. The only sold out matches are Bledisloe Cup games, and they were selling out prior to S14, and Brit Lions games. Union is the fourth football code in Australia thanks to some sterling work by the ARU.

 

[wjd23104]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Candyman @ Dec 13 2009, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

All this negative Sh*t at each other is really ******* me off!!! Until you work for the NZRFU Don't go round saying things like "What the hell do you know" "They have thought more than you" etc it is the bull!! if you read some of these posts they are suggestion not what they should do!! So read a bit closer before posting!![/b]

And other posts are i hate steve tew or and i quote "hussah! a victory for nz rugby and a kick in the teeth for the nzru(which is no bad thing) to which you reply "damn straight" where was your suggestion ? people are posting crap directed against the nzru and this not the only thread. A few good points have been made but often with big holes in them. for example "the salary cap needs to be a lot lower" how about people who think that try and convince the players union (which forced the NZRU to accept the salary cap this high when they made it a 14 team Competition) that the salary cap being dropped is in their interest. I imagine their reps will laugh in your face.

And what is this rubbish about John O'Neill dropping the Aus Domestic competition because it wasn't his idea? On planet earth thats clearly not the case. By the way i only brought it up because its a nightmare scenario that could be repeated here if the self interested unions don't get theirs heads out of their arses.

Yes Jethro i am some what aware of the ins and outs of this mess and the nzru has been thwarted by self interested groups in many cases in changing the NPC and don't be naive the NZRU did not just decide to change the apparently (in your opinion) perfect NPC. The players union threaten legal action so the salary cap had to be increased. The NZRU wanted 12 teams not 14 then you guessed it, legal action was threatened (something about the criteria for promotion).

Yes and your unbelievably stupid suggestion to tell an expansion minded ARU: what do you think about reducing the competition to 12 teams so we can sort out the loss making AirNZCup? if John O'Neill is even able to reply while rolling around the floor laughing it will be a solid NO.

Besides that we need the super 14/15 to do well so the NZRU as part of Sanzar has a strong position to get a good broadcast rights deal.

One of the big things about dropping 4 teams is paying less players. As for the Canterbury situation there are some factors like having to pay for Carter and Mccaw, Stadium renovations (i assume i'm not sure) admittedly Otago is a concern. This is why there are other criteria, someone has to go it sure isn't going to Canterbury thats for sure.

Even with all this some questions have to be asked about how the NZRU hasn't worked out a solution by now, though i'm yet to hear or read of a solution that makes everyone happy.

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wjd23104 @ Dec 14 2009, 04:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

A few good points have been made but often with big holes in them. for example "the salary cap needs to be a lot lower" how about people who think that try and convince the players union (which forced the NZRU to accept the salary cap this high when they made it a 14 team Competition) that the salary cap being dropped is in their interest. I imagine their reps will laugh in your face.[/b]

And how many of the 14 teams hit the maximum of the salary cap?

I'll tell you shall I.... TWO!!! Auckland and Canterbury, who just co-incidentally, happen to be the two biggest opponents of the salary cap. And WHY, because with a lower salary cap, they would not be able to poach players from other unions such as Manawatu, Counties and Hawkes Bay, by offering them excessive salaries and inducements.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

And what is this rubbish about John O'Neill dropping the Aus Domestic competition because it wasn't his idea? On planet earth thats clearly not the case. By the way i only brought it up because its a nightmare scenario that could be repeated here if the self interested unions don't get theirs heads out of their arses.[/b]

Well its true. Anyone who knows anything about the politics of Australian Rugby, knows that JON ran his new broom through and swept out everything that Flowers did. If you paid attention to Aussie rugby news media (the way I do) you would know that these two despise each other. With the sacking of Lote Tuquiri, JON has cleaned out the last vestige of Gary Flowers' legacy.

As a point of note, the Western Force loses more money every season that the WHOLE of the ARC did for the one season it ran.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

One of the big things about dropping 4 teams is paying less players.[/b]

Again you have this completely wrong.

Firstly. the only way that the Mickey Mouse "First" Division of Six teams could possibly have been a meaningful competititon was if the players were paid, otherwise, they would all just **** off to one of the 10 remaining Premier Unions, which is exactly what the Big Five wanted, to get their dirty mits on some cheap good quality players. That is an extra 50-60 players in the roster

Secondly. How did the NZRU possibly expect to set up TWO competitions, each with their own organisation and infrastructure, both professional/semi professional, for LESS money that ONE 14 teeam competititon. The figures don't stack up.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

As for the Canterbury situation there are some factors like having to pay for Carter and Mccaw[/b]

But that is precisely the point. Canterbury should NOT be paying the salaries for the likes of Carter and McCaw. Their salaries should be paid by the NZRU and their Super 14 franchise only, with perhaps an appearance fee for the odd one or two matches they play for Canterbury.

 

[Jethro]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wjd23104 @ Dec 14 2009, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Candyman @ Dec 13 2009, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All this negative Sh*t at each other is really ******* me off!!! Until you work for the NZRFU Don't go round saying things like "What the hell do you know" "They have thought more than you" etc it is the bull!! if you read some of these posts they are suggestion not what they should do!! So read a bit closer before posting!![/b]

And other posts are i hate steve tew or and i quote "hussah! a victory for nz rugby and a kick in the teeth for the nzru(which is no bad thing) to which you reply "damn straight" where was your suggestion ? people are posting crap directed against the nzru and this not the only thread. A few good points have been made but often with big holes in them. for example "the salary cap needs to be a lot lower" how about people who think that try and convince the players union (which forced the NZRU to accept the salary cap this high when they made it a 14 team Competition) that the salary cap being dropped is in their interest. I imagine their reps will laugh in your face.

And what is this rubbish about John O'Neill dropping the Aus Domestic competition because it wasn't his idea? On planet earth thats clearly not the case. By the way i only brought it up because its a nightmare scenario that could be repeated here if the self interested unions don't get theirs heads out of their arses.

Yes Jethro i am some what aware of the ins and outs of this mess and the nzru has been thwarted by self interested groups in many cases in changing the NPC and don't be naive the NZRU did not just decide to change the apparently (in your opinion) perfect NPC. The players union threaten legal action so the salary cap had to be increased. The NZRU wanted 12 teams not 14 then you guessed it, legal action was threatened (something about the criteria for promotion).

Yes and your unbelievably stupid suggestion to tell an expansion minded ARU: what do you think about reducing the competition to 12 teams so we can sort out the loss making AirNZCup? if John O'Neill is even able to reply while rolling around the floor laughing it will be a solid NO.

Besides that we need the super 14/15 to do well so the NZRU as part of Sanzar has a strong position to get a good broadcast rights deal.

One of the big things about dropping 4 teams is paying less players. As for the Canterbury situation there are some factors like having to pay for Carter and Mccaw, Stadium renovations (i assume i'm not sure) admittedly Otago is a concern. This is why there are other criteria, someone has to go it sure isn't going to Canterbury thats for sure.

Even with all this some questions have to be asked about how the NZRU hasn't worked out a solution by now, though i'm yet to hear or read of a solution that makes everyone happy.
[/b][/quote]


I must be thick or something as clearly I'm not getting my message across. Rugby is the fourth ranked football code in this country, the idea of expanding it is a pipe dream that JON has come up with as a replacement for the ARC. S14 crowds are falling in all four franchises in this country, people simply aren't all that interested at the moment. This idea that there are rivers of gold in Australia for Union is completely false.

The major problem for the sport in Australia is zero State level coverage on free to air, that situation is not going to get any better in the short to medium term.

Naturally Tew and co are going to sell the ANZC short to prop up this pipe dream, which is going to do damage to the game in NZ.

As stated before, leave the ANZC alone for a few years and then revisit it, you cannot decide year in year out that you are going to make changes to any sporting competition without impacting television rights and sponsors.

 

[William18]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Dec 15 2009, 12:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wjd23104 @ Dec 14 2009, 04:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A few good points have been made but often with big holes in them. for example "the salary cap needs to be a lot lower" how about people who think that try and convince the players union (which forced the NZRU to accept the salary cap this high when they made it a 14 team Competition) that the salary cap being dropped is in their interest. I imagine their reps will laugh in your face.[/b]

And how many of the 14 teams hit the maximum of the salary cap?

I'll tell you shall I.... TWO!!! Auckland and Canterbury, who just co-incidentally, happen to be the two biggest opponents of the salary cap. And WHY, because with a lower salary cap, they would not be able to poach players from other unions such as Manawatu, Counties and Hawkes Bay, by offering them excessive salaries and inducements.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

And what is this rubbish about John O'Neill dropping the Aus Domestic competition because it wasn't his idea? On planet earth thats clearly not the case. By the way i only brought it up because its a nightmare scenario that could be repeated here if the self interested unions don't get theirs heads out of their arses.[/b]

Well its true. Anyone who knows anything about the politics of Australian Rugby, knows that JON ran his new broom through and swept out everything that Flowers did. If you paid attention to Aussie rugby news media (the way I do) you would know that these two despise each other. With the sacking of Lote Tuquiri, JON has cleaned out the last vestige of Gary Flowers' legacy.

As a point of note, the Western Force loses more money every season that the WHOLE of the ARC did for the one season it ran.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

One of the big things about dropping 4 teams is paying less players.[/b]

Again you have this completely wrong.

Firstly. the only way that the Mickey Mouse "First" Division of Six teams could possibly have been a meaningful competititon was if the players were paid, otherwise, they would all just **** off to one of the 10 remaining Premier Unions, which is exactly what the Big Five wanted, to get their dirty mits on some cheap good quality players. That is an extra 50-60 players in the roster

Secondly. How did the NZRU possibly expect to set up TWO competitions, each with their own organisation and infrastructure, both professional/semi professional, for LESS money that ONE 14 teeam competititon. The figures don't stack up.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

As for the Canterbury situation there are some factors like having to pay for Carter and Mccaw[/b]

But that is precisely the point. Canterbury should NOT be paying the salaries for the likes of Carter and McCaw. Their salaries should be paid by the NZRU and their Super 14 franchise only, with perhaps an appearance fee for the odd one or two matches they play for Canterbury.
[/b][/quote]

What should have happened is that we should have reverted to the NPC the way it was prior to 2005. 3 divisions a 10,8,8 structure. Except there would have been automatic promotion/relegation. That worked and will work again.

 

[William18]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jethro @ Dec 15 2009, 08:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wjd23104 @ Dec 14 2009, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Candyman @ Dec 13 2009, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All this negative Sh*t at each other is really ******* me off!!! Until you work for the NZRFU Don't go round saying things like "What the hell do you know" "They have thought more than you" etc it is the bull!! if you read some of these posts they are suggestion not what they should do!! So read a bit closer before posting!![/b]

And other posts are i hate steve tew or and i quote "hussah! a victory for nz rugby and a kick in the teeth for the nzru(which is no bad thing) to which you reply "damn straight" where was your suggestion ? people are posting crap directed against the nzru and this not the only thread. A few good points have been made but often with big holes in them. for example "the salary cap needs to be a lot lower" how about people who think that try and convince the players union (which forced the NZRU to accept the salary cap this high when they made it a 14 team Competition) that the salary cap being dropped is in their interest. I imagine their reps will laugh in your face.

And what is this rubbish about John O'Neill dropping the Aus Domestic competition because it wasn't his idea? On planet earth thats clearly not the case. By the way i only brought it up because its a nightmare scenario that could be repeated here if the self interested unions don't get theirs heads out of their arses.

Yes Jethro i am some what aware of the ins and outs of this mess and the nzru has been thwarted by self interested groups in many cases in changing the NPC and don't be naive the NZRU did not just decide to change the apparently (in your opinion) perfect NPC. The players union threaten legal action so the salary cap had to be increased. The NZRU wanted 12 teams not 14 then you guessed it, legal action was threatened (something about the criteria for promotion).

Yes and your unbelievably stupid suggestion to tell an expansion minded ARU: what do you think about reducing the competition to 12 teams so we can sort out the loss making AirNZCup? if John O'Neill is even able to reply while rolling around the floor laughing it will be a solid NO.

Besides that we need the super 14/15 to do well so the NZRU as part of Sanzar has a strong position to get a good broadcast rights deal.

One of the big things about dropping 4 teams is paying less players. As for the Canterbury situation there are some factors like having to pay for Carter and Mccaw, Stadium renovations (i assume i'm not sure) admittedly Otago is a concern. This is why there are other criteria, someone has to go it sure isn't going to Canterbury thats for sure.

Even with all this some questions have to be asked about how the NZRU hasn't worked out a solution by now, though i'm yet to hear or read of a solution that makes everyone happy.
[/b][/quote]


I must be thick or something as clearly I'm not getting my message across. Rugby is the fourth ranked football code in this country, the idea of expanding it is a pipe dream that JON has come up with as a replacement for the ARC. S14 crowds are falling in all four franchises in this country, people simply aren't all that interested at the moment. This idea that there are rivers of gold in Australia for Union is completely false.

The major problem for the sport in Australia is zero State level coverage on free to air, that situation is not going to get any better in the short to medium term.

Naturally Tew and co are going to sell the ANZC short to prop up this pipe dream, which is going to do damage to the game in NZ.

As stated before, leave the ANZC alone for a few years and then revisit it, you cannot decide year in year out that you are going to make changes to any sporting competition without impacting television rights and sponsors.
[/b][/quote]
Who in this thread has said that union is returning rivers of gold? I certainly haven't. The ARU can't be blamed for the free to air coverage at least. From my observations the biggest problems facing rugby in Australia is that the game is too confusing and is not appetizing to juniors coming up so they play league instead. I certainly don't think the Melbourne team will be successful at all but it's Australia's team and it's their job to do what ever they want with it.

You seem to think that the NZRU should pt more emphasis of the ANZC than Super 14. This is even though the NZRU needs the Super 14 to keep Australian rugby strong as it needs SANZAR. So do you think the NZRU should just give up on Australian rugby?

 

[wjd23104]

There is no way John O'Neill got rid of the Austrailian Domestic Comp for personal reasons thats just not true. Perth may lose money but its the broadcast rights that seem to earn the most money and i understand thats why O'Neill wants to expand into Melbourne. More TV money and sponsors.

I never said Australia was returning rivers of gold. As i understand it its SA that does that (brings in rivers of gold), they bring in a large part of the broadcast rights money. The Money sure is hell isn't coming from the ANZC.

And whats this return to the NPC format? that requires going back to ten teams which last i checked is what they are trying to do.

Yes the payments to Allblacks is something they need to workout. The biggest opponent of the Salary cap is the players union not Auckland/Canterbury though
obviously they're 2nd and 3rd.

The NZRU is not making decisions year in and year out they are trying to solve the same problem but vested interests have prevented them creating the competition they've wanted for three years because the NPC was losing attendance and viewership and struggling for sponsors.

And why is it people give neg reps just because they disagree with you. I mean i not wrong in saying some of the comments have been poorly thought out and i'll freely admit i've learnt a few things from this thread as well.

 

[C A Iversen]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wjd23104 @ Dec 15 2009, 03:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

There is no way John O'Neill got rid of the Austrailian Domestic Comp for personal reasons thats just not true. Perth may lose money but its the broadcast rights that seem to earn the most money and i understand thats why O'Neill wants to expand into Melbourne. More TV money and sponsors.

I never said Australia was returning rivers of gold. As i understand it its SA that does that (brings in rivers of gold), they bring in a large part of the broadcast rights money. The Money sure is hell isn't coming from the ANZC.

And whats this return to the NPC format? that requires going back to ten teams which last i checked is what they are trying to do.

Yes the payments to Allblacks is something they need to workout. The biggest opponent of the Salary cap is the players union not Auckland/Canterbury though
obviously they're 2nd and 3rd.

The NZRU is not making decisions year in and year out they are trying to solve the same problem but vested interests have prevented them creating the competition they've wanted for three years because the NPC was losing attendance and viewership and struggling for sponsors.

And why is it people give neg reps just because they disagree with you. I mean i not wrong in saying some of the comments have been poorly thought out and i'll freely admit i've learnt a few things from this thread as well.[/b]

Negative rep. It's short for negative reputation. As far as I'm concerned if someone doesn't like you, or me, or anyone else, due to their views then they can say "I'm not a fan of this person" and negative rep them once. As long as it's not an ongoing thing and limited to once per issue or thread, then I don't see the problem.

Negative repping would otherwise just be impossible for anyone to give for any reason. Nothing against you or anyone else, I'm just clarifying.

Most of the grief that people associate with rep points is that they give one out and tend to get one back and then complain about it. Maybe not in your case, but it happens.

 

[QLD]

I think the NZRU should cut a team each year to eventually get to 10 in 3 years time.

 

[smartcooky]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dale @ Dec 15 2009, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I think the NZRU should cut a team each year to eventually get to 10 in 3 years time.[/b]

That would not be the best way to do it. The first team cut would have no hope of promotion for four years.

Better to do it this way:

http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/index.p...st&p=426440

Still overall reducing the competition by one team per year by cutting two and promoting one back.

However, the overall philosophy MUST move away from teams meeting arbitrary criteria designed to keep the bigger teams from ever being relegated. That was the problem this year. Teams like Auckland, North Harbour and Waikato knew that, even if they had a horror year, lost every match and finished at the bottom of the table, their position in the Cup was assured, while teams like Tasman who BEAT Auckland, BEAT North Harbour and BEAT Waikato, and gave Canterbury a very big fright, would end up being cut, even if they won they competititon.

Promotion/Relegation MUST be like any other competititon, professional or amateur, the bottom team goes down, and the top team from the lower division comes up. If Auckland were to ever finish at the bottom of the table, then down they go.