J
Jethro
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
So if finances are a big part of the criteria it's good night Canterbury
Naturally that's not going to happen, which makes a complete mockery of the criteria Chewbacca and his cronies have come up with, which only benefits the large unions. Note at least two unions disagreed with the May decision, making Tew an out and out liar with his claims of unamious agreement. Rumour I've heard is North Harbour were also not exactly signing on the dotted line.
It's the season the mice roared and the fans rejoiced. Trouble is, it is to no avail. There will be blood.
Tasman, Bay of Plenty and Southland have been biting off the heads of much bigger provinces and with three rounds to go, sit above Auckland and Waikato in the premier rugby competition, the Air New Zealand Cup.
While such unpredictability has invigorated the competition, punching way above their weight on the field won't save rugby minnow Tasman. Currently fourth on the table, Tasman could win the premiership and the Ranfurly Shield and still be among four to be axed as the competition tries to balance its books.
The reason is that under the criteria (see table) by which the health of each province is assessed, doing the business on the field this season is worth bugger-all - a mere five per cent (20 per cent over the four-year life of the competition) of the overall assessment. How the provinces do the business off the field carries most clout, with financial health most influential at 30 per cent.
ten teams will make up the new premier division. The four provinces relegated will go into a new six-team competition, or first division (with two to make the jump from the amateur Heartlands competition) that no one really wants to be in. Provinces most at risk of demotion are calling for the change to be deferred.
In support, they cite this year's close competition (10 teams could still make the play-offs with three weeks remaining) as evidence that the premier national competition has found its place in our hearts. Add improving finances and the "messy" domestic rugby season expected in Rugby World Cup (2011) and they say it's best to wait.
But NZ Rugby Union chief executive Steve Tew told the Weekend Herald there will be no reprieve.
There are some unpalatable conclusions to be drawn from the shake-up, most to do with the size of our economy. One is that even though we are one of few countries with rugby as its national sport, we can't make a 14-team competition pay its way.
Another is that there will be fewer of the David and Goliath battles that have lit up this year's competition. The top echelon will increasingly become the domain of the biggest provincial unions.
Though Tew says the Air New Zealand Cup's importance as the base upon which the All Blacks and five Super 14 teams are built is unchanged, the fact is that something had to give.
"New Zealand is a very small economy. What we are trying to sustain in the first instance is an All Black side that wins at above 80 per cent in a very competitive landscape and player market."
Next priority was sustaining five Super rugby teams, three of whom this year made the play-offs.
The issue for domestic rugby became whether 14 professional teams could be afforded and whether the competition could be fitted into a 12-week window so as not to encroach on the Super rugby and club seasons. "The work we have done," says Tew, "suggests 'no' and that's why we have gone to 10 plus [a 1st division of] six."
Provinces the Weekend Herald spoke to indicated the window wasn't insurmountable. Mid-week games could be played, for example, if there was sufficient will to retain 14 teams.
The bottom line of the debate is the financial bottom line. The 14-team competition began in 2006 after, says Tew, 14 provinces convinced the NZRU they could meet the facilities, player rosters and income necessary. "In the four years [since] they have lost $10 million collectively."
Broken down, that is a projected loss this year of $2.7 million, after a loss of $3 million last year and $3.7 million in 2007. The only year of surplus was 2006 - a profit of $400,000 - and that, says Tew, was due to a one-off grant from revenue generated by the 2005 British and Irish Lions' tour.
The Rugby Union, which has made multimillion-dollar losses in two of the past three years, no longer has the money to bail the competition out, and its not prepared to crib from the All Blacks or Super rugby budgets.
Tew emphasises that the impetus for the restructure of the premier competition came from the provinces. Nine came to the union in April and said they were struggling financially. Something had to give.
Though they would never agree on the criteria, because their circumstances differ, they accepted the characteristics that should drive a good competition. "That's been the foundation of the work we have done. This is not something dreamt up on a whiteboard by a bunch of shiny arses in Wellington."
Nor was it a cunning plan to save big provinces under-performing on the field, such as North Harbour (currently 11th, last year 12th).
Tew acknowledges that because this year's competition has been so good it makes the change harder to sell to a public enthused by the spectacle of Davids knocking off Goliaths.
He suggests the automatic promotion and relegation will allow a David to rise from the 1st division and challenge all of the Goliaths. That, however, doesn't take account of serious doubts about whether the six-team 1st division competition will be meaningful.
The two teams that come up from the amateur Heartland competition must leap a huge gulf (even with a $200,000 booster grant) from amateur to semi-professional, and the four teams to be culled from the Air New Zealand Cup face losing top players understandably keen to play in the top domestic competition to push for higher honours. It is unlikely those teams will be able to maintain the same standard.
Whether the 1st division will be televised is uncertain and that is crucial. Without television coverage one province says it could lose 60 per cent of its sponsorship money.
The slope back will likely be slippery indeed.
Manawatu has been there. A fiercely competitive province in the 1970s and 1980s, Manawatu's nadir came in 2005 when, as a second division side under the old NPC structure, they were beaten 109-6 by the visiting Lions.
Their resurgence in recent seasons stems from restructuring to a 14-team premier division, which saw them retain homegrown talent and attract up-and-comers. They beat Canterbury last season and this year were denied an Eden Park win over Auckland by a last minute try.
Locally produced first five-eighth Aaron Cruden is tipped as a future All Black but has a get-out clause in his contract if Manawatu miss out on the premier division.
All the provinces were recently privately told their ranking (based on their on and off-field performance last year) but that has not been made public. The last publicly available viability list (see table) had Manawatu, Bay of Plenty, Southland, Northland and Tasman at the bottom.
The success on the field of the likes of Tasman, Southland and Bay of Plenty has seen increased gate takings and television ratings up a giddy 50 per cent so far on last year.
"It's pleasing," says Tew. "Yes, it makes it [the smaller competition] harder to sell. Yes, it distorts the decision that has to be made but you have to take a longer view and [not get] carried away in the emotion of the moment."
The Air NZ Cup final is November 7. A decision on the provinces to be dropped is expected later that month.
In the scrum: provinces fight for top-flight survival
NORTHLAND
* Currently 13th on competition table, last year 9th.
* CEO: Andrew Golightly.
* Not resigned to being dropped.
In the black last year, will be again this. "The key was always going to be to show you were solvent and sustainable," says Golightly.
Cut salaries on and off-field two years running, reduced roster of contracted players to 27. Golightly suspects operating on tightest budget in the competition.
Didn't agree to 10-team competition but accepts that majority rules.
Wants decision to reduce to 10 teams deferred. Believes that if all 14 can pay their way they should stay.
Concern: "I still have question marks over the proposed division 1 competition and whether it will be truly meaningful."
BAY OF PLENTY
* Currently 6th, last year 4th
* CEO: Jeremy Curragh
* "We are one of the threatened unions."
Absolutely not resigned to being dropped.
Will make small profit for second year running ($200,000 profit last year, loss of $800,000 year before).
Accepts 10-team competition is the outcome of discussions of how to make it pay.
The threat of the axe may have helped raise performance and mobilise fans but thinks "provincial rugby union has finally found its role in the rugby landscape. Super Rugby is still to find where it fits but we are all about parochialism."
"The only way to make any material difference [to surviving] is the financials. We are all fighting pretty hard. What is missing is some key information about potential savings of the new competition and, if you go down to Division 1, what that will mean."
SOUTHLAND
* Currently 5th, last year 5th
* CEO: Roger Clark
* Confident "without being cocky" of survival but resigned to reduction to 10 teams.
"We don't like the population component which is linked to player numbers, so we get penalised twice.
But that is a small part of whether you can be successful in this competition and I think we have proved that over a long period."
At 90,000 Southland has the smallest population of the 14 provinces but highest per capita ratio of players, with more registered players than Tasman, Manawatu and Taranaki.
"We have to live with the criteria and so we have concentrated on what we can control such as investing in developing local players".
Southland has 10 Super Rugby competition players. It expects to make a "significant surplus" this year.
"Bottom line is the NZRU can't keep bailing you out. It's my attitude that if your community wants you in this competition they have to put their hand in their pockets and come to your games and buy your memberships and support the team through sponsorship."
MANAWATU
* Currently 10th, last year 14th.
* CEO: John Knowles
* Hopeful rather than confident of survival
Deficit is filling fast, fuelled by parochial passion, wins in early rounds and realisation they are staring down the barrel.
Understands that 14-team premier grade hasn't been affordable. If they are relegated, being debt-free will give best chance to win way back, but playing in 1st division will be no guarantee of operating in the black.
Unavoidably would lose some top players and concern is the quality of Division 1 competition.
Will push to keep status quo until after the Rugby World Cup. "Back in April, when we did the review, we were all singing from the same sheet but since then we are now questioning whether we made the right call ... because it has been such an interesting competition and because a lot of provinces are getting their house in order it is worth deferring the decision."
TASMAN
* Currently 4th, last year 7th
* CEO: Peter Barr
* Knew before season began that irrespective of whether we won we'd be relegated.
"I'm sure the team gets satisfaction each time they win. It's a way of proving to the NZRU that they deserve to be playing at the highest level."
Barr puts on-field success down to the team's maturity over past four years and retaining core of players.
Didn't agree to criteria but weight of opinion was in favour. "We still question why we are being assessed over four years. Now and the future is more relevant to our sustainability."
Going to make a surplus this year. "We see ourselves as a bit of model. We are performing on the field and have retained the team from last year despite paying them less. We have reduced our dependency on gaming funds and we have grown our player and coaches base."
Criteria loaded against Tasman. "You could almost say it is discriminatory against smaller unions. We have proven that the size of our population and player base isn't necessarily relevant to how you perform on the field."
Concerned about viability of 1st Division. "I don't believe Heartlands teams can bridge the gap. There is a lot of risk for them, despite a rocket payment from NZRU. It's the sustainability I struggle with and we have been there we have been on death row and it's not easy."[/b]
So if finances are a big part of the criteria it's good night Canterbury
Naturally that's not going to happen, which makes a complete mockery of the criteria Chewbacca and his cronies have come up with, which only benefits the large unions. Note at least two unions disagreed with the May decision, making Tew an out and out liar with his claims of unamious agreement. Rumour I've heard is North Harbour were also not exactly signing on the dotted line.
