I thought i would start an NZ sports thread. After all there is plenty to discuss. Let's kick it off with this from stuff, it looks like the south african teams are negotiating with the magners league in the UK (the Celtic teams league) and are likely to leave the Super 14 next year:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4850535a1823.html

Ok personally i think this is good news. Having South Africans in the super 14 makes the comp disjointed and imposes ridiculous travel demands on the players.

I would like to see a Australasian competition with 10 NZ provinces and 4 current aussie super 14 sides (Not composite franchises with stupid pseudo american sports team names like Blues, Chiefs etc). After which you could have a champions league knockout comp with the 4 top finishing teams in the currie cup (South Africa) champs, 4 top finishers in the Japanese domestic champs and the 4 top finishers in the Australasian comp. Ala the Heinekin cup, tyhis way rather than selling one competition to news ltd for the TV rights you would be selling them 2.

Any thoughts?

I agree completely, the South African teams almost ruin the competition for me. Far to disjointed as you said. I think 12 teams with a double round robin would be nice. Five Australian and seven New Zealand teams would be ideal (North Shore, Napier-Hastings and Tauranga possible contenders for expansion teams). I'd also like to see place names used in titles, I'm sick of hearing them referred to purely as the Blues, Chiefs, Reds.

Yeah i think when i look at top sporting comps around the world, like the english premier league, and to a lesser extent in it's hey day the NRL they have two things. Firstly quality on the field and secondly fanatical support.

The first one we would have with the NZ and aussie teams already. The second you would get if you used NZ provincial teams. Draw on that tradition and local pride built up over 100 years. People in this country will get in behind their provinces more than they would behind super 14 franchises.

I get sick of all this talk of incorporating teams from Japan and the pacific and Argentina into a domestic comp. It would add nothing in terms of quality of the tournament and would make it even more disjointed. Plus how the hell would a pacific islands team sustain a team in a competition like this?

I liked the idea of having a pool for each country, with each team playing home and away, with the top 2 teams from each pool going through to a 6 team finals series.

hmmm yeah the conference system. They use that in american sports a bit. it is feasable if you do have a comp with a few nations involved. I think it has been mooted by sanzar as a possible way to do it

However i still prefer the idea of a champions league style knockout comp after each of the respective competitions to get the best of the best.

http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/news/article/-/5327670/saru-rubbishes-super-14-walkout

Looks like there was not a lot of truth to the story. A shame as it would have made for a better comp without them in my opinion.

Sports thread huh...hmm, thoughts on the NZ Maori kerfuffle the South Africans are causing? I saw the poll on Close Up last night was 71% of respondants thought we shouldn't have a Maori rugby team. I'm actually inclined to agree with the South Africans on this one (though it's been pointed out they actually have a racial quota for the Springboks, which makes them a bit hypocritical). Though I think they should ditch that too.

I agree completely, the South African teams almost ruin the competition for me. Far to disjointed as you said. I think 12 teams with a double round robin would be nice. Five Australian and seven New Zealand teams would be ideal (North Shore, Napier-Hastings and Tauranga possible contenders for expansion teams). I'd also like to see place names used in titles, I'm sick of hearing them referred to purely as the Blues, Chiefs, Reds.

I'd advocate going back to place names provided they were along the boundaries of current first-division teams. I don't particularly want to support the OTAGO Highlanders when half the players are from Southland if it includes the current Highlanders catchment. Agree about the South Africans, don't know who half those teams are, they're all meaningless, and from across the other side of the world, which is a massive waste of money.

I thought i would start an NZ sports thread. After all there is plenty to discuss. Let's kick it off with this from stuff, it looks like the south african teams are negotiating with the magners league in the UK (the Celtic teams league) and are likely to leave the Super 14 next year:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4850535a1823.html

Ok personally i think this is good news. Having South Africans in the super 14 makes the comp disjointed and imposes ridiculous travel demands on the players.

I would like to see a Australasian competition with 10 NZ provinces and 4 current aussie super 14 sides (Not composite franchises with stupid pseudo american sports team names like Blues, Chiefs etc). After which you could have a champions league knockout comp with the 4 top finishing teams in the currie cup (South Africa) champs, 4 top finishers in the Japanese domestic champs and the 4 top finishers in the Australasian comp. Ala the Heinekin cup, tyhis way rather than selling one competition to news ltd for the TV rights you would be selling them 2.

Any thoughts?

I like this idea. The only problem might be that only Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland, and probably Waikato (with others from time to time) would really be able to compete with those Aussie state teams (QLD and NSW, anyway). Damn Australia for not having good-sized regions. Perhaps if we chucked teams from some of the weaker Aussie states in there to balance it out? Northland vs Victoria (though those weaker Aussie states might be TOO weak). So then again, maybe ACT and WA would be fair matches for the likes of the mighty Northland Taniwha.

Sports thread huh...hmm, thoughts on the NZ Maori kerfuffle the South Africans are causing? I saw the poll on Close Up last night was 71% of respondants thought we shouldn't have a Maori rugby team. I'm actually inclined to agree with the South Africans on this one (though it's been pointed out they actually have a racial quota for the Springboks, which makes them a bit hypocritical). Though I think they should ditch that too.



I'd advocate going back to place names provided they were along the boundaries of current first-division teams. I don't particularly want to support the OTAGO Highlanders when half the players are from Southland if it includes the current Highlanders catchment. Agree about the South Africans, don't know who half those teams are, they're all meaningless, and from across the other side of the world, which is a massive waste of money.


The NZ maori issue is an interesting one. Personally i don't have a problem with them however it is a racially selected team so i suppose if you wanted to be consistant you would do away with the concept. I wonder if there is really a need for it in this day and age. In saying that there is a lot of tradition behind the NZ Maori team that goes back to the early 20th century.

Agree about the SA racial quotas, they say that they do it because the springboks should be representitive of the society they come from. This misses the point a rugby team does not need to be representitive of the racial make up of the society it comes from it just has to be representitive of the best rugby players from that society. That's like NZ imposing a pakeha quota on the ABs because there is a disporportionate amount of polynesian players.

Would be great if we could just have a trans tasman comp. Will probably not happen though if anything it will get worse. Any time changes are suggested people start talking about including teams from Japan, Canada and Argentina which would make it one hell of a mess and even more disjointed and contrived.

I totally agree with you about the regional teams. I'm a north harbour supporter so can't really get passionate about supporting the blues. We have always been local rivals with Auckland and the battle of the bridge used to be a big match. Same with the Southland v Otago derby people get behind their province they are not as passionate about a contrived regional team. How excited to people from the Hawkes Bay get about the Hurricanes?

The exception would be the Crusaders but that's because they are really just Canterbury anyway.

I like this idea. The only problem might be that only Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland, and probably Waikato (with others from time to time) would really be able to compete with those Aussie state teams (QLD and NSW, anyway). Damn Australia for not having good-sized regions. Perhaps if we chucked teams from some of the weaker Aussie states in there to balance it out? Northland vs Victoria (though those weaker Aussie states might be TOO weak). So then again, maybe ACT and WA would be fair matches for the likes of the mighty Northland Taniwha.

Yeah that's a very good point. I think ideally you would want every team to have at least an outside chance of winning the comp. The way to acheive that would be a salary cap i suppose so that a team like Northland had the same amount to spend on players as NSW or any other team. You would probably have to allow a couple of foregin players per team as well although you would have be strict on the quotas for that.

You may also (shudder) need to allow a degree of private investment into teams so that there is enough cash to go around.

Like the air nz cup there would be some sides who would not make the cut because they just dont have the finances to sustain a team. You would probably retain a second division for some of these teams which would be ametuer. Sucks for those provinces but that's the way it is with professional sport.

What do you reckon?

Yeah that's a good idea...or maybe the Australian teams could operate on slightly different regional bounds? The ACT Brumbies' catchment actually includes a portion of New South Wales already, and I had an idea NSW cover Victoria, or part of it.

So maybe instead of state-based teams, they could have city-based (with appropriate districts attached to a city so the entire state is covered). Brisbane (perhaps divided into more than one team like Auckland currently is), Sydney (again, perhaps more than one team), Gold Coast, Canberra, Newcastle, Wollongong, and a North Queensland team covering the whole upper half of the state? And on our side, you'd have Northland (hopefully), North Harbour, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Hawke's Bay, Taranaki, Wellington, Canterbury, Otago, Southland. With the second-division teams having the opportunity to get back in like in the former NPC? I don't think making the second-division fully amateur would be a good idea, because it would be near impossible for a team to get back into first division. Hawke's Bay were second-division in the old NPC, and now they're kicking arse in the Air NZ Cup. Imagine if they hadn't had a fair chance at redemption?

I mean, if we only had 8 teams on our side in this 'first division', and they were based on the 2008 Air NZ Cup standings for the first season of this new Super comp, the teams would be Wellington, Canterbury, Hawke's Bay, Bay of Plenty, Southland, Waikato, TASMAN of all places, and Taranaki. Imagine Auckland being forced to be in a fully amateur second division!

The only certainty is that no matter how the teams exist, Canterbury's one is still almost always going to win.

Probably wouldn't make to much difference if you slightly changed the georaphical boundries in terms of players. Being fully professional players would move around from state to state anyway.

Interesting ideas the only thing i would wonder is would the aussie having enough playing depth to support more than say 4 to 5 teams max? The other problem would be that again you are contriving teams. Their state sides have been in operation for a long time so you would be asking their fans to get in behind some new team much like we have complained about.

The other thing i'm not sure of is what sort of support base Rugby Union has outside of Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra. Does it have a foothold at all outdside of these places? (i think Perth works beacuse of the large amount of South African, English and Kiwi expats living in the city). Would people in places like Newcastle or Northern Queensland get behind rugby union team? From what i've seem league seems to rule the roost in places like that.

I do like the idea of having divisions but don't know if it's pssoible for an ametuer team so suddenly go up to a professional league and compete. I reckon the second division teams would more likely act as feeders to the top comp much like the minor leagues in baseball.

Im sorry I know nothing about union so cant add anything here.

What I am going to say is that the first 20/20 between NZ and India takes place in Christchurch tomorrow. I never really rated 20/20 but enjoyed the last few games Ive seen so will be watching tomorrows match all the same.

The forecast is for showers dying out in the afternoon and temp of 17 so not the best cricket weather. But then we all know what they say about rain and the black caps.

No worries probably time for a topic change anyway.

Not a huge 20/20 fan either more looking forward to the test and ODI series, but i'll be watching as well.

A real shame we have not been able to get a test match venue sorted up here in Auckland yet might have to make the trip to Hamilton.

Probably wouldn't make to much difference if you slightly changed the georaphical boundries in terms of players. Being fully professional players would move around from state to state anyway.

Interesting ideas the only thing i would wonder is would the aussie having enough playing depth to support more than say 4 to 5 teams max? The other problem would be that again you are contriving teams. Their state sides have been in operation for a long time so you would be asking their fans to get in behind some new team much like we have complained about.

The other thing i'm not sure of is what sort of support base Rugby Union has outside of Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra. Does it have a foothold at all outdside of these places? (i think Perth works beacuse of the large amount of South African, English and Kiwi expats living in the city). Would people in places like Newcastle or Northern Queensland get behind rugby union team? From what i've seem league seems to rule the roost in places like that.

I do like the idea of having divisions but don't know if it's pssoible for an ametuer team so suddenly go up to a professional league and compete. I reckon the second division teams would more likely act as feeders to the top comp much like the minor leagues in baseball.

Sorry yeah that's a good point about contriving THEIR teams. The Brumbies and the Warratahs are very old teams, but the others are both Super 12 era (1996+). As for the last paragraph...Auckland as a feeder for Northland, I reckon :lol: (well, if we were to start with the teams as currently ranked in Air NZ cup that would indeed be the case).

Sorry yeah that's a good point about contriving THEIR teams. The Brumbies and the Warratahs are very old teams, but the others are both Super 12 era (1996+). As for the last paragraph...Auckland as a feeder for Northland, I reckon :lol: (well, if we were to start with the teams as currently ranked in Air NZ cup that would indeed be the case).

:lol: Yeah as funny as i would find that (although i'm an Aucklander i'm a North Harbour suppporter) i don't think that would happen money and population would mean Auckland would be in there no matter how shitty their team was.

Yeah the other teams are newis ones although ACT have had a team for many years before the professional era (Campese used to play for them years ago). They were really crap.

Oh well looks like the Super 14 is here to stay in one way or another. It will be interesting to see what "improvements" are suggested. Can't see myself staying up to watch the Blues V Kobe steel live from Japan.:)

A real shame we have not been able to get a test match venue sorted up here in Auckland yet might have to make the trip to Hamilton.
Gahhhhhhh :bash::bash:

I can't believe that Auckland gets deprived of test cricket. Come on.....!

Yeah it's a bummer. Eden Park outer oval has potential but they would have to spend a bit on it to put in more seating sort out a grass embankment and generally bring it up to scratch.

Are there any other parks around Auckland you think could be developed as potential test venues? None spring to find for me.

would love to see the ACG with a 25k stadium half stadium, half grass embankment at Albany. Sheikh Zayed Stadium in Abu Dhabi is a good starting point for a new cricket ground http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/other/content/ground/59396.html
Albany is a long way for most Aucklanders, but they choose to live there.

Yeah it's a bummer. Eden Park outer oval has potential but they would have to spend a bit on it to put in more seating sort out a grass embankment and generally bring it up to scratch.

Are there any other parks around Auckland you think could be developed as potential test venues? None spring to find for me.

Aren't there plans to turn the outer oval into a "boutique" venue as part of the overall redevelopment. I think they were aiming for a capacity of about 7K.

would love to see the ACG with a 25k stadium half stadium, half grass embankment at Albany. Sheikh Zayed Stadium in Abu Dhabi is a good starting point for a new cricket ground http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/other/content/ground/59396.html
Albany is a long way for most Aucklanders, but they choose to live there.

I have always though North Harbour stadium would be possible as an Auckland cricket ground there is nowhere near as much rugby played on it as Eden park and so could work better as a multi purpose ground. I think they have one super 14 game a year there and then notthing until the end of the club season and NPC so there would not be clashes.

With the busway and motorway heading straight up there it's now easy to get to but still i think there is a perception from Aucklanders on the southern side of the bridge that Albany is the middle of nowhere.

However it is built as a rugby stadium so it would be an awkward shape for cricket as Eden Park was and i'm not sure if the field would be big enough for cricket maybe it would.

The best thing about that is at 25K it could be used for ODIs as well.

Aren't there plans to turn the outer oval into a "boutique" venue as part of the overall redevelopment. I think they were aiming for a capacity of about 7K.

Did not know that. That's great. 7K is probably a good size for a test venue in NZ.

Yes there are plans for Eden Park outer oval. I think the ground needed to be made a bit bigger and obviously need a few thousand seats. I think they were aiming for around 10k capacity.

However nothing can really be done until after the current construction at Eden Park is completed. So maybe we'll see Test Cricket in about 2013.... aaarrrggghhhh

Really?? Woah that's just pathetic. No test cricket for four years?

Is there anywhere that could be used as an interim venue?

Don't think so.

Personally I don't see a problem with the main Eden Park ground being used for Test Cricket. So what if it looks empty with 5000 people in it, it's still more people than a full 3000 capacity stadium.

^^ Look at how empty Lord's or the MGC can be sometimes during test matches. I'm of a similar mind to you, Eden Park is better than a much smaller dedicated venue.

We are never going to get massive crowds here for test matches. I really do like the idea of having dedicated grounds for test cricket. It would be nice for Auckland to have a basin reserve type cricket ground with a grass embamkment.

However if the outer oval is not going to be ready until about 2013 then i agree why not use the main ground for the time being it's done ok up til recently.

There's a BIG Indian population in Auckland so I reckon the current tour would have got pretty good crowds to the Test Matches. Who the heck wants to go all the way to Hamilton.... (though I must admit I am considering it).

The ODI in Auckland might be a sell-out with the reduced capacity.

Yeah fair call actually the Indian community does usually come out in force when the Indians tour.

Personally i'm really looking forward to this tour ( i'm also considering taking a day off work to head down for the Hamilton test match) more to see some of the Indian players in action than any real hope i have of us winning much. In saying that we should as usual be competitive in the ODIs (hopefully).

Yes I agree. Last chance to ever see Tendulkar play in NZ I would suspect.

Yep and possibly Dravid and VVS Laxan as well they are both nearing the end of their careers i think.

Jeez who would want to be a black caps bowler with the batting lineup they have?

Are there any other parks around Auckland you think could be developed as potential test venues? None spring to find for me.

I dunno, how about something on the waterfront? Oh its been suggested and shot down already? Oh well maybe again one day?

There's a BIG Indian population in Auckland so I reckon the current tour would have got pretty good crowds to the Test Matches. Who the heck wants to go all the way to Hamilton.... (though I must admit I am considering it).



Yep, the indian community is very good at supporting their team. I work with an Indian guy who got citizenship on Waitangi day and he will be going tonight with his black caps shirt on.

Another pipe dream would be imagine a high speed rail service between the two centres where an Aucklander could easily consider going to Hamilton for a one dayer and being able to get back home by midnight.

I dunno, how about something on the waterfront? Oh its been suggested and shot down already? Oh well maybe again one day?

Oh no, let's not revisit that. Too depressing.:ohno:

One thing about a waterfront cricket ground, a lot of cricket balls would end up in the drink.

my suggestion for albany was not for the rugby ground but for the cricket ground behind it, build a new stand around half of that ground

my suggestion for albany was not for the rugby ground but for the cricket ground behind it, build a new stand around half of that ground

In my opinion we shouldn't start moving everything to the far flung corners of the city, it kills life.

It's one complaint I've always had about the Allianz Arena in Munich (despite it having excellent transport connections and being a great stadium to boot) - it's in the middle of bloomin' nowhere and thus it's very much a "travel to then travel back" venue. Despite having a megamall at Albany there is no street life, and no ambience. The very best stadia I have been to all have street life and something to hold one to the area after a match (and before a match too) rather than the rush to car, rush to home mentality which some stadiums encourage.

my suggestion for albany was not for the rugby ground but for the cricket ground behind it, build a new stand around half of that ground

that's basically building a whole new stadium i would think the cost would be too great. Eden park outer oval has some stands and practice nets. It's at least half ready to go.

Anybody know if the dimensions at AMI have been adjusted due to the construction work? During the T20 tonight one boundary (towards the existing stand) looked tiny.

^^ Yeah, the whole pitch allignment was very strange. I hope once the stadium is complete it is all sorted out.

In my opinion we shouldn't start moving everything to the far flung corners of the city, it kills life.

It's one complaint I've always had about the Allianz Arena in Munich (despite it having excellent transport connections and being a great stadium to boot) - it's in the middle of bloomin' nowhere and thus it's very much a "travel to then travel back" venue. Despite having a megamall at Albany there is no street life, and no ambience. The very best stadia I have been to all have street life and something to hold one to the area after a match (and before a match too) rather than the rush to car, rush to home mentality which some stadiums encourage.

Yeah, by these requirements neither has Eden Park or Mt Smart!:lol:

Eden Park does have Kingsland and the Eden Quarter shops quite nearby. It's hardly in the middle of nowhere as much as Albany is. Of course it's not ideal though ;)

Eden Park does have Kingsland and the Eden Quarter shops quite nearby. It's hardly in the middle of nowhere as much as Albany is. Of course it's not ideal though ;)

Yeah even as a north shore resident i have to agree Eden park is the better option. It's centrally located, not far from the CBD and has plenty of bars and shops around. Pity it's also surrounded by suburbia.

Yeah, by these requirements neither has Eden Park or Mt Smart!:lol:

Mt Eden is at least a little better as Kingsland does have a commercial centre with bars nearby. It's slightly better than "middle of field with megamall and parking" albany. Guess I just hate albany more than anything though. ;)

Yes Albany is a bit..... plastic at the moment. I hope that in a few years the empty fields will fill up and we'll actually have something resembling a proper town centre. The northern side of the Westfield has been designed quite nicely, but in the end it's still a mall.

Oh, and it's annoying the busway doesn't actually take you to the mall. It's a weird walk from the bus station over to the Westfield.

Yes Albany is a bit..... plastic at the moment. I hope that in a few years the empty fields will fill up and we'll actually have something resembling a proper town centre. The northern side of the Westfield has been designed quite nicely, but in the end it's still a mall.

Oh, and it's annoying the busway doesn't actually take you to the mall. It's a weird walk from the bus station over to the Westfield.

Until they get rid of surface parking with a multistory parking complex, it will still feel very unfriendly to pedestrians. But this is a topic for another thread. :D

Super 14 is on? I hadn't noticed...the Blues have been playing all their games past midnight. This is why the South African teams need to be ditched. The timezones are messed up and don't match with NZ/Aussie. I say trash the S14 and just have a trans-tasman NRL-like comp.

I also like the idea of a conference system. Two pools of seven teams, one from NZ and one from Aus. The top three from each then go into a playoff type of format until the winner is found. It works because you can still have your local derby games and cut down on travel costs at the same time.

The seven NZ teams would probably be (Auckland, North Shore, Hawkes Bay, Bay Of Plenty, Wellington, Canterbury, Otago).

And yes, I missed Hamiltron on purpose :D

Gahhhhhhh :bash::bash:

I can't believe that Auckland gets deprived of test cricket. Come on.....!

Why is that anyway? It's a joke that Auckland is getting shafted like this. I mean, they can hardly call that disgrace of a test match at the "University Oval" just recently a better venue. My backyard has better drainage

How can they expect cricket to be a popular game when Auckland barely sees a game of it. So short-sighted.

Super 14 is on? I hadn't noticed...the Blues have been playing all their games past midnight. This is why the South African teams need to be ditched. The timezones are messed up and don't match with NZ/Aussie. I say trash the S14 and just have a trans-tasman NRL-like comp.

I also like the idea of a conference system. Two pools of seven teams, one from NZ and one from Aus. The top three from each then go into a playoff type of format until the winner is found. It works because you can still have your local derby games and cut down on travel costs at the same time.

The seven NZ teams would probably be (Auckland, North Shore, Hawkes Bay, Bay Of Plenty, Wellington, Canterbury, Otago).

Could not agree more. Discussed earlier in the thread. Trans tasman comp followed by champions league style knockout tourney with top four teams from trans tasman, curry cup (SA), and maybe Japan as they do in Europe.

Conferences would not work in a trans tasman comp in my opinion. Really don't think Australia could sustain any more than the current 4 union teams. Don't have the player depth or more importantly the fanbase to support more than that.

http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/news/article/-/5358630/japan-franchise-favoured-super-15

This has to be one of the dumbest things that they could do :bash:

A japanese team who plays home games in Australia and will probably be full of kiwi, aussie and SA players. I for one will be switching off. Far from improving the current comp this will make it more irrevelvant, contrived and of even less interest to you average rugby fan.

^^Yeah, pretty much the dumbest move they could make. Its like they are trying to make the competition as crap as possible.

They don't seem to be aware of why the competition has become so stale and interest has become so low.

Hopefully News ltd will know a turkey when they see one and tell them to go back to the drawing board. I doubt it though.

Rugby in this part of the world spends far too much time chasing casual sports fans and people who have not got any real interest in the game. What they are doing is isolating the traditional fans.

Could not agree more. Discussed earlier in the thread. Trans tasman comp followed by champions league style knockout tourney with top four teams from trans tasman, curry cup (SA), and maybe Japan as they do in Europe.

Conferences would not work in a trans tasman comp in my opinion. Really don't think Australia could sustain any more than the current 4 union teams. Don't have the player depth or more importantly the fanbase to support more than that.

Its as though these rugby unions are run by complete fucking idiots - oh thats right they are; witness the well managed 2003 world-cup co-hosting...the 2007 world cup debacle; the several years of drop off in interest...and yet that moron Jock Hobbs had the guile to state that after the successful grand-slam at the end of 08 that the NZRU had been "successful" in winning back the support of the New Zealand public - ummm I don't think so; could he really be that naive?!

I think the idea of a trans-tasman comp would be fantastic; if there isn't enough of a player pool in Aus then a pacific islands team could be formed and based in somewhere like North Queensland or Melbourne with occasional games (i.e pre-season) at wherever was up to scratch in the pacific islands.

This way you could have something like 6 teams from Australia and 8 from NZ with say the top 6 being granted entry to a knockout "Heineken cup" style competition playing against the best 4 or 6 (probably 4) teams from a combined South African and Argentinian competition. I mean I am all for expanding the game into Asia but to pique people's interest in the game would be to hold more exhibition matches ala ManUtd. not to have a crappy team that no-one in any timezone will be interested in seeing; getting thrashed 10000miles from Nagoya or Edmonton. :cheers:

^^

Oh yeah the most important point that I missed though was that you get more of the Derby atmosphere that people actually care about to help stimulate television ratings and bums on seats; its pretty hard to get excited about going to a half-finished ami stadium to watch the Crusaders play against some nameless; no-face Saffa outfit and it will be even harder to watch them play "Toyota city"

Its as though these rugby unions are run by complete fucking idiots - oh thats right they are; witness the well managed 2003 world-cup co-hosting...the 2007 world cup debacle; the several years of drop off in interest...and yet that moron Jock Hobbs had the guile to state that after the successful grand-slam at the end of 08 that the NZRU had been "successful" in winning back the support of the New Zealand public - ummm I don't think so; could he really be that naive?!

I think the idea of a trans-tasman comp would be fantastic; if there isn't enough of a player pool in Aus then a pacific islands team could be formed and based in somewhere like North Queensland or Melbourne with occasional games (i.e pre-season) at wherever was up to scratch in the pacific islands.

This way you could have something like 6 teams from Australia and 8 from NZ with say the top 6 being granted entry to a knockout "Heineken cup" style competition playing against the best 4 or 6 (probably 4) teams from a combined South African and Argentinian competition. I mean I am all for expanding the game into Asia but to pique people's interest in the game would be to hold more exhibition matches ala ManUtd. not to have a crappy team that no-one in any timezone will be interested in seeing; getting thrashed 10000miles from Nagoya or Edmonton. :cheers:


Amen to that brother. It's not just our rugby union either the aussies have also been leading the push to expand into asia and other areas. I agree exhibition matches would be more effective and perhaps the champions league style comp would help promote the game there as well.

The PI team might be a hard one because most of the best PI players who don't already play for Kiwi or Aussie sides play in Europe.

^^

Oh yeah the most important point that I missed though was that you get more of the Derby atmosphere that people actually care about to help stimulate television ratings and bums on seats; its pretty hard to get excited about going to a half-finished ami stadium to watch the Crusaders play against some nameless; no-face Saffa outfit and it will be even harder to watch them play "Toyota city"

They would proably also have some naff team like the "toyota city samurai" or the "Yokohama Origami" or somthing stupid like that.:lol:

God....Super 15?! Haven't they got enough teams?! It's not like the Force and Cheetahs are taking the competition by storm

BTW, I think this may have been mentioned already but can we please get the regional names back. Call them the Auckland Blues and Waikato Chiefs for the love of god. I know that doesn't include the entire franchise...but so what? Same as the African teams...where the hell are the Lions and Cheetahs from? No one knows....

Just over an hour before the one day series with India kicks off in Napier. Anyone care to predict how the series will go? I predict 3 wins to NZ, 1 to India and 1 rained out!

Oram and Ryder return to the team. I'm surprised Elliott did so well last month- I'm hoping he continues his good run.

I'm going to be positive and say a 3 -2 series win to the black caps. Before they give us an absolute shellacking in the test series.

Elliot was an interesting selection from what i saw of him before the Aussie tour he just looked like a bits n peices cricketer, dribbly medium pace bowler and a competent but unspectacular lower order batsman. I didn't rate him at all and was really surprised he did so well against them. Great that Oram's back.

India has won the toss and are batting.

Sri Lankan cricketers attacked, injured in Pakistan
5:56PM Tuesday Mar 03, 2009

LAHORE, Pakistan - An official says eight members of Sri Lanka's national cricket team have been wounded after gunmen opened fire on their vehicle in eastern Pakistan.

Pakistan Cricket Board security official Nadeem Iqbal says the team members were hurt near the stadium where they were due to arrive to play.

Sri Lankan team manager Brendon Kruppu confirmed the incident and said the team's batsman, Kumar Sangakkara, was among the injured.

Security concerns have plagued Pakistan for years and some foreign sports teams have refused to play here.

CNN reported one player had been shot in the head and leg.

The team was arriving to begin the third day's play of the second test against Pakistan.

City police chief Haji Habibur Rehman said five policemen died in the shooting.

The players injured are thought to be Kumar Sangakkara, Ajantha Mendis, Thilan Samaraweera and Tharanga Paranavithana, with Samaraweera the worst injured.

- AP, NZ HERALD STAFF

Sri Lankan cricketers attacked, injured in Pakistan
5:56PM Tuesday Mar 03, 2009

LAHORE, Pakistan - An official says eight members of Sri Lanka's national cricket team have been wounded after gunmen opened fire on their vehicle in eastern Pakistan.

Pakistan Cricket Board security official Nadeem Iqbal says the team members were hurt near the stadium where they were due to arrive to play.

Sri Lankan team manager Brendon Kruppu confirmed the incident and said the team's batsman, Kumar Sangakkara, was among the injured.

Security concerns have plagued Pakistan for years and some foreign sports teams have refused to play here.

CNN reported one player had been shot in the head and leg.

The team was arriving to begin the third day's play of the second test against Pakistan.

City police chief Haji Habibur Rehman said five policemen died in the shooting.

The players injured are thought to be Kumar Sangakkara, Ajantha Mendis, Thilan Samaraweera and Tharanga Paranavithana, with Samaraweera the worst injured.

- AP, NZ HERALD STAFF


Shit, that's terrible. :ohno: Just heard this on the cricket commentary a little while ago. Even the ICC will have to now admit this is just not a safe country to tour at the moment.

Yes utterly terrible. I certainly hope all the players are OK. It will be years before anyone plays cricket in Pakistan again, I feel very sorry for the fans there.

Well from a Kiwi perspetive yesterdays game was pretty shite. Guptills innings was the only highpoint.

But come on what is it with the rain? That revised total after the break of over 100 runs off 7 overs was a joke!

Oh well, Wellington tomorrow. And my calender is clear so I will be watching the entire match from home with a couple of mates around. If it rains I will go absolutely berko!

Well from a Kiwi perspetive yesterdays game was pretty shite. Guptills innings was the only highpoint.

But come on what is it with the rain? That revised total after the break of over 100 runs off 7 overs was a joke!

Oh well, Wellington tomorrow. And my calender is clear so I will be watching the entire match from home with a couple of mates around. If it rains I will go absolutely berko!

Yesterday was a hiding no two ways about it. I thought when they batted the Indians looked all class particularly Sehwag and Dhoni.

Do really like the look of Guptill as a batman, best thing is he's only 22 so will be around for a while and will only get better.

Duckworth lewis is farcical. Surely there is a better way to decide rain effected matches than that.

Let's hope we put up a better showing from tommorow on or this is going to be a pretty painful series to watch as a NZ supporter.

You folks need a separate Cricket thread!

I think this series is going to be pretty close. If India comes out on top then they are well on their way to being a very very good team. Have to see how this series will play out.

Duckworth lewis is farcical. Surely there is a better way to decide rain effected matches than that.
simply not true

simply not true

No? you don't think having to score 100 runs of 7 overs is farcical? Please do elaborate.

Duckworth isn't great, but it's better than the old system. Anyone remember the 1992 World Cup game between England and (i think) South Africa.

South Africa need 24 from 13 balls to win and were looking ok. But it then rained and when they came back they needed...get this....24 from 1 ball. LOL

Now that system sucked.

Duckworth isn't great, but it's better than the old system. Anyone remember the 1992 World Cup game between England and (i think) South Africa.

South Africa need 24 from 13 balls to win and were looking ok. But it then rained and when they came back they needed...get this....24 from 1 ball. LOL

Now that system sucked.

I remember that well. I thought that was Duckworth Lewis but just checked and saw that DL came in in 96. So yes agree it is better than whatever that was.

problem with duckworth lewis is that most people make no attempt to understand it
perfect explanation: http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ABOUT_CRICKET/RAIN_RULES/DUCKWORTH_LEWIS_2001.html

No? you don't think having to score 100 runs of 7 overs is farcical? Please do elaborate.
in 17.1 overs dec black caps need 167 with 6 wickets left
had those 10 overs been played then the most likely amount of runs new zealand would have scored without losing a wicket would've been about 67.
you're alternative system is?

ALL I ASK IS A ONE DAY GAME PLAYED IN FULL IN GOOD HOT WEATHER.

No inclement weather, no DuckworthLewis, no showers, no bad light, no covers, no called off due rain.

Thankfully Canterbury comes to the rescue. Weather today is a decent warm 26 degrees, and tomorrow is forecast to be similar. Most importantly- no rain.

in 17.1 overs dec black caps need 167 with 6 wickets left
had those 10 overs been played then the most likely amount of runs new zealand would have scored without losing a wicket would've been about 67.
you're alternative system is?

No alternative system. Thinking about it I reckon personally i'm just not that into mathimatically contriving a result from a rain effected game. It always feels artificial and unsatisfying to watch to me. Perhaps you are right if you are going to use a system then DL is the best. Still don't really dig it though.

I would proably rather they just used a reserve day or called it a draw if they could not get a full day in. Sure you would get a lot of series without a winner due to rain but that's cricket. Happens all the time with test series. Actually maybe that is my alternative system.

Although i understand in tournaments like the world cup they need to have a result.

^^ I remember reserve days for international games from back when I was a kid.

India currently 258/3 in the 38th over. Even on the postage stamp size Christchurch ground thats pretty impressive. Tendulkar just got a century. NZ has chased well on this ground- I remember when you beat Australia's 340 odd a couple of seasons ago. I hope your batsmen fire tonight.

that game was rude
the icl has uses a different system but there is little difference between it and duckworth lewis. the notion of having so many games with no results is not something i'm a fan of; the reserve day is a sad loss but i think logistically there were nightmares

Yeah i could see how reserve days could get difficult. Probably not really practical anymore with the busy schedules and the amount of ODIs they play.

Well yesterday's game was a bit of a pants down botty spanking in the end. Tendulker showed his class again and the rest of them were not too shabby either. We gave it a bit of nudge to start with, Ryder was outstanding but chasing 392 was probably always going to be too hard.

At least we got a full game in with no rain interupptions. There has been some positives signs with our batting. Guptill, Ryder and Mcullum have had their moments to name a few. However the bowling's looked a bit toothless. Would be good if we could have Bond steaming in at least.

Anyone else sick of Ian Smith? He's so fucking negative - never says anything good about anyone. Well, apart from his pet project Ross Taylor.

http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/news/article/-/5379123/south-africa-sanzar-notice

The saffas want the new Super 15 to start in January. Awesome, it's not like it starts way too early already right?:bash:

They Obviously see the Currie Cup as more important, and so should they it has 100 years of tradition and provincial rivalry behind it. It also has actual provincial teams rather than "regional franchises" named after various species of big game animal.

They also want a team from the Eastern Cape included in the super 15, not sure how they think they would compete. Sure the Bulls and Sharks are going good but their other three are propping up the bottom end of the table.

I say ditch them and start our own gig with the aussies.

Anyone care to predict how the series will go? I predict 3 wins to NZ, 1 to India and 1 rained out!

Well I was a bit wrong there. I think I underestimated India's batting strength. At least I was correct in one of the games being rained out.

For tomorrow I really want NZ to bat first. I want to see how they go about posting and defending a target.

Yes i might have been a bit hopeful myself. Not got very high expectations on today's game.

Man, India are just too good! 4-0 for sure.

World cup 2011 games and venues are being announced today at Eden park.

http://files.allblacks.com/comms/RWC_2011_Match_Schedule.pdf
i like these venue names
ami stadium = stadium christchurch (lancaster park not good enough??)
westpac stadium = wellington regional stadium
forsyth barr stadium = carisbrook
hamilton gets 3 games wtf?
napier getting 2 is harsh

How about All Blacks pool games in Akld, Hamilton and Wellington ... Chch will get NZ quarterfinal assuming they qualify. Queenstown and Tauranga miss out as venues.

Pretty fair draw. Two big quarter finals in our 2nd and 3rd largest cities for a pumping weekend, and then off to our largest city for the final two weeks.

The opening game is boring though, but i can understand why they did it. NZ v Tonga willl sell out in an opening game, but not a couple of weeks later. Whereas NZ v France will always sell out since France are a good team.

Rotorua over Tauranga seems pretty harsh. Especially considering Tauranga is the heart of the BoP (assuming the issue is they only wanted one city per province) and is where the BoP Air NZ Cup team are based, and considering the likes of Nelson got in. Queenstown missing out probably makes sense, as it would be up against Dunedin and Invercargill for the southern part of the country, which are both very strong rugby cities. Interestingly, Nelson and Rotorua (3 each) both get more games than Invercargill and Napier (2 each), which is slightly backwards. Rotorua should get 1 game max and at least Tauranga 2, while one of Nelson's should be at either Napier or Invercargill.

And yeah, wtf is with 'Stadium Christchurch'???

I think there are a couple of reasons for Rotorua getting the games. Firstly they are a major tourist destination and they have a far more hotels and motels than Tauranga. Basically they are set up to handle a large amount of visitors.

The second thing would be that the international stadium can hold about 35,000 spectators wheras i think Blue Chip Stadium is about 20k capacity.

Personally i would rather go to Tauranga any day of the week. However i can see the reasoning behind the decision.

35k? Wow I had no idea they had a stadium that big there. What on earth does it get used for?

EDIT: the wiki article appears to have been written by a racoon, but it says it seats 4k in the covered grandstand...making a bit more sense now. The other 30k get to sit and stand out in the rain on terraces or something I guess?

Not much these days. Yeah most of it is outdoors. It used to be the main ground for Bay of Plenty Rugby for years until Blue Chip stadium was built over in Tauranga. It also hosted games at the first world cup in 1987. From memory the third place play off between Oz and Wales was played there.

Rotorua used to be the main centre in the BOP but Tauranga has now overtaken it. Mainly due to the port i think.

Ah I see. BoP's really the only province in NZ that has more than one major city other than Hawke's Bay. Which reminds me, I feel sorry for Hastings. It doesn't seem to get much love when it comes to this kind of thing either.

http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/news/article/-/5392435/fuming-saru-threaten

Well looks like the South Africans are chucking their toys and might again leave the Super 14 after swearing they were committed.

But fear not because if they leave the ARU and NZRU have an ace up their sleeve. That's right you guessed it, a team in Japan and a team in the islands.

Awesome. :ohno::bash:

Ah I see. BoP's really the only province in NZ that has more than one major city other than Hawke's Bay. Which reminds me, I feel sorry for Hastings. It doesn't seem to get much love when it comes to this kind of thing either.

What does it matter really? You can get from Hastings to Napier in less time than you can from Eden Park to North Harbour Stadium. They're effectively two parts of the same entity.

good i would prefer not to invole the south african teams. but please not japan

^^ Could not agree more ,see earlier in the thread we discused at length a trans tasman comp followed by a champion league style knockout against the currie cup's top 4 teams at the end of the season.

Involving a Japanese team and for that matter one from the islands would make the competition even more artificial and irrelevant it would also make it disjointed which is one of the major problems of having SA involved now.

Lol a Japanese team...yeah, that'll be a huge drawcard. :ohno:

Don't these idiots realise no one wants to see teams they have no connection with that are just totally contrived for that purpose? Only Australia and NZ are really appropriate to a competition like this.

Would be fantastic to ditch SA, they've made themselves look terrible over the last few weeks. Selfish and indignant. The competition they are proposing for themselves sounds ridiculous. Why the obsession with teams from every corner of the globe? What's wrong with elevating the Currie Cup to the level currently occupied by Super Rugby?

One wonders how a team from the "islands" is even viable. Which country would that be? Fiji? Politically unstable and on unfriendly terms with NZ. Plus their economy is too small to make a profit one would think.

The rest of the islands are way too small. All of Samoa has less people than Waitakere City with a lot less disposable income.

So then what? Base it in Auckland? That's just going to take away support from the Blues.

And then we have a team from Japan. Oh joy, let's watch a bunch of over the hill kiwis playing for the Nissan Raiders.

Stupid bastards

Let South Africa go off and Play with the Northern Hemisphere teams.. The travel between here and there is to friggin long and most teams are fucked after the long flights.

A rugby comp with 5 teams from aussie, 5 from NZ and 1 or two from the islands would be best.

And then have a 5 nations with SA, Australia, Argentina, Japan and ourselves.

Win win win all round..

One wonders how a team from the "islands" is even viable. Which country would that be? Fiji? Politically unstable and on unfriendly terms with NZ. Plus their economy is too small to make a profit one would think.

The rest of the islands are way too small. All of Samoa has less people than Waitakere City with a lot less disposable income.

So then what? Base it in Auckland? That's just going to take away support from the Blues.

And then we have a team from Japan. Oh joy, let's watch a bunch of over the hill kiwis playing for the Nissan Raiders.

Stupid bastards

Regarding an island team. The answer is it wouldn't. It would have to be subsidised by the other franchises. In terms of viewing numbers, facilities or anything it would not stack up.

Let South Africa go off and Play with the Northern Hemisphere teams.. The travel between here and there is to friggin long and most teams are fucked after the long flights.

A rugby comp with 5 teams from aussie, 5 from NZ and 1 or two from the islands would be best.

And then have a 5 nations with SA, Australia, Argentina, Japan and ourselves.

Win win win all round..

An islands team is just not viable in a professional comp. They don't have the resources.

Plus a 5N with Japan would be boring, they'd lose to the Auckland NPC team by 20 points.

I think an NRL-like comp would be better. Just have a trans-tasman comp and at the end of the season a type of champions league where the top clubs around the world play each other. That would be awesome IMO.

I agree Blah. A trans-Tasman competition would be a great move. Not sure how it could fit in with the NPC though...

Well we all seem to be on the same page with this.

Jarbury, I think the NPC would have to become a feeder comp. Like a second division.

If we revert to provinces again for the trans tasman comp then provinces that don't make the cut would have to play in the NPC which you would probably run at the same time. I know a lot of people would not like this but a lot of the smaller provinces would become development/feeder teams for some the bigger ones in the trans tasman comp.

However what would then happen to the Ranfurly shield is the next question?

I agree Blah. A trans-Tasman competition would be a great move. Not sure how it could fit in with the NPC though...

I think the NPC can just be like the Toyota Cup is in Rugby LEague. An amateur comp that gives players a taste of high level rugby, but is basically just a feeder comp to whatever the new pro-comp is called.

THe NPC as it currently stands is also not viable. It's leaking money big time.

Let South Africa go off and Play with the Northern Hemisphere teams.. The travel between here and there is to friggin long and most teams are fucked after the long flights.

A rugby comp with 5 teams from aussie, 5 from NZ and 1 or two from the islands would be best.

And then have a 5 nations with SA, Australia, Argentina, Japan and ourselves.

Win win win all round..

I don't really want to see any island teams, that'd just make ours weaker. Just whack two more NZ teams in there (or 1 NZ and 1 Aussie, if there's another Aussie team strong enough).

I like Blah's idea of the top teams playing each other...the top Currie Cup vs NPC teams would have been great. Though Australia is problematic there, not having a strong domestic competition like SA and NZ do.

I still find it hard to be that interested in the Highlanders (though they are playing in Invercargill more and wearing Southland colours a lot this season which is good, I imagine it's a survival decision) though.

I'm afraid that SA is here to stay (unless they choose to leave).

Under the broadcasting agreement (which generates the major cash for the SANZAR unions) a whopping 65% is attributable to the SA pay-TV provider. So if you get rid of SA, you are reducing your product, therefore the value the market is willing to pay, and ultimately the amout that the ARU & NZRU will receive. And thats a big hit in anyone's bank balance....

And its not as simple as replacing them with someone else. The US and Asian markets don't have the rugby subscribers/viewers yet. Only the UK and Europe could be substituted - but they have their own (more lucrative) arrangements.

Its simple economics.

KLK, they very nearly DID leave the other day. Read a few posts back.

KLK, they very nearly DID leave the other day. Read a few posts back.

Nah - all media talk. They also know where their bread is buttered - their only option is to join with the Magners league teams (non-English) in a competition separate to the Heineken Cup. No more lucrative from the broadcasters point of view. But there is no doubt they hold the upper hand in SANZAR expansion talks.

But I was really coming from the fact that NZ & Australia are not going to get so fed up with SA that they say "b*gger off". Economically they can't.

How are broadcasting revenues actually split? I've been looking for some info but there doesn's seem to be that much available.

Agree NZ and Aus will not ditch SA it will be the other way round. SA bring in 65% of the broadcast revenue apparently through the supersport broadcast rights. However they also add a hell of a lot to the cost of staging the comp. So if the leave that could somewhat offset the lost revenue.

NZ and Aus don't want SA to leave but i could see them doing it. One of the reasons they are so protective of the currie cup is that they have an extremely lucrative broadcast deal for that as well. I could see them walking.

This competition is a lame duck anyway, nobody cares. Most NZ franchises can't give tickets away. For example last week the Blues were selling two tickets for $10 as a promotion and still only quarter filled North Harbour stadium.

From a fans point of view if they could stitch together some sort of transtasman comp with proper provinces that would be great we need a competition with more meaning. If the choose to go for an "asia pacific" comp with teams from Japan and the islands that will be just another nail in the coffin and people will continue to turn off in droves.

Decent recovery in the cricket: from 60/6 to 161/6

Decent recovery in the cricket: from 60/6 to 161/6

Yeah, good recovery but I expect India to get 400+. It was a bad toss to lose though.

Seems like it was an OK batting pitch right from the start though (well... after the first hour). Yeah India look on track for a big score (though Gambhir goes as I type this...)

Regardless of what happens in the test just good to see two Kiwis make hundreds in a single innings.

Vettori now has what is it 3000 runs and 200 wickets in test cricket which is a record as well.

Hadlee did 3000 runs & 400 wickets I thought?

And yeah, wtf is with 'Stadium Christchurch'???

Rugby World Cup rule; the stadiums cannot have corporate sponsors names. When the Cup was in Australia in 2003, Suncorp Stadium reverted to its old name of Lang Park until it was over.

yes but stadium christchurch over lancaster park?

yes but stadium christchurch over lancaster park?

It does seem odd. I understand their reasoning behind Wellington, since Westpac Stadium was the name from the very beginning (I would have preferred Cake Tin Stadium though :lol:), but it does seem odd that Christchurch didn't just flick back to Lancaster Park.

Perhaps the powers that be have amnesia?

That's what I was getting at. Lancaster Park is what it should always be called.

I suppose for people overseas it tells them exactly which city the games are in. Many of them would not know where Lancaster park is. After all it hasn't been called Lancaster park since what the late 90s or so?

Yeah but for the rest of the time where it's called Jade/AMI/whatever it is now, I doubt that means much to them either.

Manawatu now Highlanders country
Last updated 05:00 24/03/2009


Highlanders host Bulls at new home
By LOGAN SAVORY - Southland Last updated 05:00 24/03/2009
Share
Print
Text Size
Related Links

Highlanders host Bulls at new home

Manawatu Rugby Union boss John Knowles is hoping the Palmerston North public will make a loud statement on Saturday night.

A loud statement to both the Hurricanes franchise and the New Zealand Rugby Union.

In a ground-breaking move the Highlanders will play a "home game" in Palmerston North on Saturday evening when they meet South African team the Bulls in round seven of the competition.

Knowles wasn't hiding the fact Manawatu rugby fans were "peeved" as a result of their Super 14 snubbing in recent seasons.

He suggested it is that snubbing that will lure people to the game.

Manawatu falls into the Hurricanes region but wasn't allocated a Hurricanes game this year.

The Palmerston North public now seemed to have embraced southern team the Highlanders. Their loyalties have quickly swung as a result of the move to hold the game in the city this weekend.

In a poll on a local Palmerston North radio station last week Knowles said people who called in unanimously backed the Highlanders rather than throwing their support behind the Hurricanes during this year's Super 14.

Knowles said the rugby public had been starved of top level rugby recently and he suggested the city would show on Saturday night that it deserved to be hosting Super 14 games.

Knowles earmarked a figure of 10,000 which he would be happy with at the capacity 14,000 Arena Manawatu ground.

"There is a real buzz and excitment in the city about the game. Super 14 is failing miserably around the country but we've been starved of top level rugby and I think we'll pull in a pretty good crowd," he said.

If that 10,000 figure that Knowles has circled for Saturday was met then the Highlanders bold move to play a home game outside the region is likely to be regarded as a successful one.

A crowd of 12,000 showed up for the Highlanders 6-nil victory over the Crusaders in round four, but outside of that the Highlanders home crowds have again generally been poor this season.

Invercargill did pull in 6500 for the game against the Chiefs a fortnight ago, which is the second largest Highlanders crowd.

But that is expected to be eclipsed in Palmerston North this weekend.


The Manawatu Rugby Union have made a guarantee to the Highlanders franchise that it will pull in an undisclosed crowd number.

If that crowd number isn't met Manawatu will have to pick up the cost, however, Knowles was confident the union wouldn't be hit in the pocket as a result of the venture.

The Highlanders will travel to Palmerston North tomorrow where they will hold training sessions and visit schools to try help promote Saturday's game.

Good on Manawatu I say. If they're being snubbed by the Hurricanes then why shouldn't they revolt and support someone else?

10k is a lot for a Highlanders 'home' game too, more than an Invercargill crowd even. Personally, I hope they get that many at the Palmerston North game and show the Hurricanes where to stick it =)

this highlights why the franchises are a crap idea. Bring back proper provinces so that people actually have proper teams to cheer for again.

Honestly would anyone in Palmy really give a rat's ring peice about the Hurricanes? A team that does not play any games there and plays in a yellow and black strip. What a joke. :bash:

If anyone is listening to Radio Sport at the moment Miles Davis is discussing this. Most callers seem to be in favour of going back to proper provinces.

I felt a bit like that about the Highlanders until very recently. It's only this year they've bothered to wear Southland colours (I've noticed commentators accidentally calling them Southland even), because no one in Otago shows up to games, and half the squad are from Southland, with Southland being the far stronger province of the two in recent Air NZ Cup seasons. Most of their match profit is made in Southland as well. It makes sense.

As Manawatu aren't in that position with the Hurricanes however, I think these drastic measures are warranted.

Yeah i noticed the highlanders had recently donned maroon jerseys.

The thing is though they are still not Southland though they are a regional franchise. They still play the majority of their games at carisbrook. How can anyone get overly enthusiastic about that?

We have dumped over 100 years of provincial tradition in favour of the meaningless regional franshises and i think this is a major reason nobody is interested in the super 14 anymore. Sadly the people who run the game here don't seem to have any idea about this and think serving up more of the same will get people back into it.

In the Northern Hemisphere the game is thriving and the standard IMO is nowhere near as good. Why? because they have a menaingful competiton based around traditional club teams like Wasps, Harlequins, Saracens, London Irish, Munster, Ulster etc. Not franchises with daft american sounding names. People need to feel a connection to their team.

But how do you choose which 5 teams play in the Super 14? Even a trans-tasman series would only have maybe 7-8 New Zealand teams at most.

Well some teams would miss out and have to play in a second teir competition. That's just the way it is. I'd accept that as a North Harbour supporter my team could possibly be one of those. Much like a team like Newtown which won the winfield cup in the 1980's is now playing in the NRL second tier comp and much like many teams that have long and proud histories in English football now play in lower divisions.


I'd rather cheer for my team in a lower competition than somebody else's (The Blues are really just Auckland they play in Blue and White strip and are based at Eden Park) in a higher one.


In an ideal world you would have promotion/relegation but i'm not sure you would be able to do that in NZ. It would be hard for a team from an ameteur competition to come up and compete in a professional one. Unless of course making the first division meant a slice of the TV money from the NZRU with which you could buy some players to bolster your team.


I think you would want 8 NZ teams at least. I think we have more chance of sustaining that then Aussie would have of sustaining 5 teams. Don't think they have enough depth unless they let in foreign players or start raiding league. That would mean a few would not make the cut.

From the current NPC line up I would think you would take out either Harbour or Counties as 3 teams from the Auckland region would be too many. I'd think Tasman would probably go as well. They have looked shaky for years. So there are two that would not make the cut for starters.

But how do you choose which 5 teams play in the Super 14? Even a trans-tasman series would only have maybe 7-8 New Zealand teams at most.

The Super 10 had it right back in the day. Just the top four teams from the Air NZ Cup each year.

Of course that does run the risk of a rather useless Auckland team missing out, which would be a bit of bummer for profit in this country. That wasn't an issue back in the Super 10 days of course when Auckland kicked everyones arse.

In the Northern Hemisphere the game is thriving and the standard IMO is nowhere near as good. Why? because they have a menaingful competiton based around traditional club teams like Wasps, Harlequins, Saracens, London Irish, Munster, Ulster etc. Not franchises with daft american sounding names. People need to feel a connection to their team.

Some of our NPC teams have names. Northland Taniwha, BoP Steamers, Hawke's Bay Magpies, Manawatu Turbos, Wellington Lions, Southland Stags.

EDIT: And apparently Counties-Manukau are known as the Steelers according to wiki.

Some of our NPC teams have names. Northland Taniwha, BoP Steamers, Hawke's Bay Magpies, Manawatu Turbos, Wellington Lions, Southland Stags.

EDIT: And apparently Counties-Manukau are known as the Steelers according to wiki.

Yes but these have only come about in the last few years. These are marketing gimmicks as well.

In the case of Wellington they are only called that because of the beer that sponsors them, Lion Brown. I think the name steelers came about because of sponsorship as well although i could be wrong about that. I remember at one stage they had mascot called steely dan.

Hawkes Bay's traditional nickname was the magpies and their mascot had always been a magpie called Hawkeye. Manawatu turbos sounds particularly ridiculous.

Maybe i'm just a crabby old traditionalist but it all just seems a bit forced and fake but the names are not really the issue for me i just think they sound a bit silly. To be honest i don't really care if they want to use daft names as long as they play as provinces rather than regional franchises. I think they have more meaning to many people.

The Super 10 had it right back in the day. Just the top four teams from the Air NZ Cup each year.

Of course that does run the risk of a rather useless Auckland team missing out, which would be a bit of bummer for profit in this country. That wasn't an issue back in the Super 10 days of course when Auckland kicked everyones arse.

I thought Super 10 was only the so called big 3 of Akld, Wgtn and Chch and there was no promotion/relegation for other NZ provinces. By memory that's why Waikato and Otago established the CANZ series with Canada even if it was very much the poor cousin.

I thought Super 10 was only the so called big 3 of Akld, Wgtn and Chch and there was no promotion/relegation for other NZ provinces. By memory that's why Waikato and Otago established the CANZ series with Canada even if it was very much the poor cousin.

No i think you are confusing it with the South Pacific championship which preceeded the super 10. The super 10 was the top four qualifiers. I remember Harbour made it one year and Warren Burton missed a kick in front of the posts against NSW which would have got them through to the semis.

i'd prefer a 14/15 team trans tasman competition, and the top teams from this competition the currie cup and a few japan/argentina/pacfic teams play the next season in a heineken cup/uefa champions league like competition. a way of including south africa/japan/argentina/pacific without including them... if that makes sense

Honestly would anyone in Palmy really give a rat's ring peice about the Hurricanes? A team that does not play any games there and plays in a yellow and black strip. What a joke. :bash:

The Canes are EXTREMELY popular in Palmerston North, as they are in New Plymouth, Napier etc...and there is the problem.

We constantly hear whingeing about poor gates for S14, and yet the Hurricanes, with 7 home games this year, will only play 1 game outside of Wellington.

Everytime a game is played in PN it basically sells out - so thats at least 16k, probably closer to 18k. How many times will the Canes get a gate of 16k in the Cake Tin this year? And thats before we talk of the bigger venues in New Plymouth and Napier.

Moving to 5 provinces makes stuff all difference, in fact, its worse. You effectively have 5 provinces now because 95% of games are played in 5 centres - Auckland City, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. And the fact is that those cities aren't exactly getting outstanding support from the locals either at S14 or NPC level. If you move permanently to those venues then you alienate the rest of the population in the provinces who - miraculously - still support their local franchise despite the shameful treatment by the franchise boards and the NZRFU. How will that help?

The Canes are EXTREMELY popular in Palmerston North, as they are in New Plymouth, Napier etc...and there is the problem.

We constantly hear whingeing about poor gates for S14, and yet the Hurricanes, with 7 home games this year, will only play 1 game outside of Wellington.

Everytime a game is played in PN it basically sells out - so thats at least 16k, probably closer to 18k. How many times will the Canes get a gate of 16k in the Cake Tin this year? And thats before we talk of the bigger venues in New Plymouth and Napier.

Moving to 5 provinces makes stuff all difference, in fact, its worse. You effectively have 5 provinces now because 95% of games are played in 5 centres - Auckland City, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. And the fact is that those cities aren't exactly getting outstanding support from the locals either at S14 or NPC level. If you move permanently to those venues then you alienate the rest of the population in the provinces who - miraculously - still support their local franchise despite the shameful treatment by the franchise boards and the NZRFU. How will that help?


Are the Hurricanes themsleves really popular or is it just that once every two years in Palmy they get to see top level rugby in the flesh? I'll bet you the Highlanders sell out there as well does this mean the Highlanders are really popular there? Do they really give a toss about the super 14 comp? Are they really passionate Hurricane supporters who get uspset if the Hurricanes get knocked out of the comp? Or do they just enjoy going along once every two years to what is essentially an exhibition match for them, a night out.

I'm not talking about just five provinces, that's my point give the provinces their own teams to cheer for. You can say well we have to have South Africa in there because of money but how much is this competition going to be worth in a few years? Television Audiences in NZ alone have decreased by hundreds of thousands of viewers and nobody comes to the games. This Super competition is a lame duck nobody cares, it's dying. I've watched games on telly from SA and mostly they look to have empty stadiums there as well.

read some of the TV figures here
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10562847

I suppose the best way is to ask people on this forum what they think. Any rugby fans from Napier/Hastings or New Plymouth or Palmerston North which team has more relevance to you the Hurricanes or Taranaki/Hawkes Bay/Manawatu? What would you rather the Hurricanes win the super 14 or your province wins the Ranfurly shield?

Are the Hurricanes themsleves really popular or is it just that once every two years in Palmy they get to see top level rugby in the flesh? I'll bet you the Highlanders sell out there as well does this mean the Highlanders are really popular there? Do they really give a toss about the super 14 comp? Are they really passionate Hurricane supporters who get uspset if the Hurricanes get knocked out of the comp? Or do they just enjoy going along once every two years to what is essentially an exhibition match for them, a night out.

As a Palmy boy, trust me. The Hurricanes are popular because its OUR team in the Super 14 - and this despite the fact we have had very few players in the team historically. The suggestion that its only an exhibition match for us is, if you'll excuse my language, damn condescending. The Hurricanes "Junior" partners bought into the regional concept better, arguably, than the members of the other 4 franchises. I think the Canes' junior partners gripe is difficult to comprehend for many in the other regions because (Crusaders aside) at least their team visits the other ANZC provinces within the franchise at least once a season. The Hurricanes - despite having a truly regional fanbase - do not. And its reflected in both the crowds we get, and the anger and disappointment when, again, "our" team never plays in our city. Even one game every other year would be OK - but we generally don't even get that.

But if you want a comparison, then I expect a crowd of about 9-10k for the weekend. Decent, yes, But well short of 16k they would get for the Canes. So part of it is about big rugby, but more of it is about wanting the Canes to play fairly regularly.

I do not understand why, at a time where we have dwindling, some would say pathetic, crowds in the home bases, and there is talk of the "grassroots" feeling disconnected with the professional game, we continue to shun, at a guess, 40% of the supporter base - those based out of the Big 5.

I'm not talking about just five provinces, that's my point give the provinces their own teams to cheer for. You can say well we have to have South Africa in there because of money but how much is this competition going to be worth in a few years? Television Audiences in NZ alone have decreased by hundreds of thousands of viewers and nobody comes to the games. This Super competition is a lame duck nobody cares, it's dying. I've watched games on telly from SA and mostly they look to have empty stadiums there as well.

We have to have SA in for the money. The NZ rugby pay-tv market is saturated, their is little growth potential in Australia and Japan and the US - despite big populations, is small fry. By all means set up a trans tasman comp. But prepared to take a big revenue cut.

And as for "giving them their own province to cheer for"...who? Playing strength, depth and market forces will inevitably see Auckland, Waikato (Hamilton), Wellington and Canterbury (Christchurch) making up 4 of the top 5 with one other to fight it out - how little is that different from what we have now? I'll tell you how. Wellington (for example) won't be able to draw on support (travelling or otherwise) from Manawatu, Taranaki, Hawkes Bay etc etc...so their supporter base just went down. And you can't tell me 10k extra people from the Capital are going to rush through the gates because you rebrand them "Wellington" as opposed to the Hurricanes

I suppose the best way is to ask people on this forum what they think. Any rugby fans from Napier/Hastings or New Plymouth or Palmerston North which team has more relevance to you the Hurricanes or Taranaki/Hawkes Bay/Manawatu? What would you rather the Hurricanes win the super 14 or your province wins the Ranfurly shield?

Don't see the point. One competition is practically a development tool, the other a revenue earner. If you were having to choose between dumping one, sure, but thats not whats happening. I would probably like to see Manawatu win the shield preferably, and maybe most would at a provincial level. But the Ranfurly Shield/ANZC doesn't pay the bills.....and besides, I'd actually like to see both happen :)

As a Palmy boy, trust me. The Hurricanes are popular because its OUR team in the Super 14 - and this despite the fact we have had very few players in the team historically. The suggestion that its only an exhibition match for us is, if you'll excuse my language, damn condescending. The Hurricanes "Junior" partners bought into the regional concept better, arguably, than the members of the other 4 franchises. I think the Canes' junior partners gripe is difficult to comprehend for many in the other regions because (Crusaders aside) at least their team visits the other ANZC provinces within the franchise at least once a season. The Hurricanes - despite having a truly regional fanbase - do not. And its reflected in both the crowds we get, and the anger and disappointment when, again, "our" team never plays in our city. Even one game every other year would be OK - but we generally don't even get that.



I do not understand why, at a time where we have dwindling, some would say pathetic, crowds in the home bases, and there is talk of the "grassroots" feeling disconnected with the professional game, we continue to shun, at a guess, 40% of the supporter base - those based out of the Big 5.


We have to have SA in for the money. The NZ rugby pay-tv market is saturated, their is little growth potential in Australia and Japan and the US - despite big populations, is small fry. By all means set up a trans tasman comp. But prepared to take a big revenue cut.





Don't see the point. One competition is practically a development tool, the other a revenue earner. If you were having to choose between dumping one, sure, but thats not whats happening. I would probably like to see Manawatu win the shield preferably, and maybe most would at a provincial level. But the Ranfurly Shield/ANZC doesn't pay the bills.....and besides, I'd actually like to see both happen :)

Fair enough i'll take your word on that as a palmy boy. Personally i find that a bit strange. As a North Harbour supporter i can't get into supporting the Blues pretty much all of my mates are the same. They mean nothing to me and that's just across the bridge. I can only speak from a North Harbour perspective when the Blues come across to play games over here not many turn up. For a lot of us It's not our team. The whole thing seems a bit farcical i mean for 3 years there we were with the Cheifs.


Don't mean to be codesending i just can't understand how people can have any connection to a team based in another city with no local players or tardition associated with that team. What i meant that was as Palmy does not host test matches this was the highest standard of rugby you could see there live without having to jump in your car and drive to Wellington or elsewhere.


I'm not sure if it's because you are not living here but I think you are seriously underestimating how unpopular this tournament has become and how much trouble it is in. Yes there would be a revenue cut if SA opted out and also a large cut in cost of holding the tournament by not having to fly players half way around the world. However if the tournament continues to be a fizzer then how much will the likes of Newsd ltd pay for it anyway? Who wants to watch teams nobody really gives a toss about playing in empty stadiums?

However If you look at earlier posts you will notice that most of us are not just advocating a trans tasman on it's own. there would also be a champions league style knockout competition with the top four currie cup teams and maybe some from Japan. This could add numbers to potential TV viewership without the situation we have now of playing a provinvial league type tournament over three time zones .



I think the reason SANZAR is having these meetings to try and flesh out a new style of tournament is that if they keep with the status quo the revenue is going to go anyway. People are voting with their feet. This competition is in it's death throes and there have to be changes soon IMO.


I think you would if you remember back when the ABs used to play in the NPC late 90s early 2000s and the tournament was not just treated as a development comp you used to get great crowds. I can actually remember the games from back then, Ben Blair's try to keep the shield from wellington back in 2000, Otago's win in the 98 NPC, Wellington winning the 2001 final when Jonah scored that scorcher down the touchline, Taranaki winning the sheild in 96 and then defending it against Harbour (Damn them!).I honestly can't remember who the Super 14 finalists were last year(I'm pretty sure the Crusaders were invloved, buggered if i know who they played), but then again it may be just me. To me it seems sterile and atrificial.


If you want to make things a bit more even you could introduce a salary cap and distribute the TV money evenly amongst the provinces. However you might notice in many competitions around the world there are always a few teams that will dominate look at the english premiership for example. However there are also inevitably upsets. Like i said in an eralier post i'd rather support my team at the bottom of the table than somebody elses (in my case the Blues) at the top. Hell we never won anything besides the second division until the sheild a few years ago. That dosn't mean i'm not interested in watching my team because we are not likely to win the thing.

Woah that's a long post!

Double post

i'd rather support my team at the bottom of the table than somebody elses (in my case the Blues) at the top.
its good that you say that and i hope you mean it but that is the complete opposite of the bandwagon nature of supporters in this country.

I absolutly mean that. I watched many games at both Onewa Domain and North Harbour stadium and we never won anything really until the sheild a few years back against Canterbury. We made the NPC final in 94 but lost that as well. Thats as close as we have come.

Your team is your team as far as i am concerned. I started going to Onewa Domain as a kid in the late 80s and have been a supporter ever since.

I agree supporters in this counrty are fickle this has been discussed on another thread.

I was at the 1994 NPC final as an Auckland supporter. Along with the 1998 Super 12 Final it was the best atmosphere for a rugby match I've ever been to. One heck of a brutal game that was too.

Yeah the 94 NPC final, the battle of Onewa domain. I was there too. That was on of the most spiteful and dirty games i've seen. I think even Eric Rush got sinbinned in that game. Warren Burton dropped the ball on his own goal line to gift Fitzpatrick a try which pretty much won them the game.

I remember Zinzan Brooke goading the Harbour crowd afterwards during his acceptance speech and everyone booing him. He was an arrogant bastard.

You just didn't like him because he replaced Buck Shelford. LOL

Yeah Eric Rush got sent off, Robin Brooke got sent off. Pretty crazy game, but one hell of an entertaining afternoon. Thought the crowd were going to kill each other that day - you'd never get that atmosphere at Albany Stadium sadly.

Yeah well there was that about him as well :lol:

Exactly there was real feeling and excitment that day on the field and off it which was great. I guess it was the old big brother/little brother thing plus there was a dispute leading up to the game Auckland wanted the final to be played at Eden Park even though Harbour had finished top and were entitled to home advantage. That was why Zinzan Brooke sracastically said to the crowd after the game that they loved playing at Onewa domain.

You just don't get that with Super 14 and i agree no you would not get that at Albany stadium these days since the NPC has been relegated to a development competition. It's been said many times but those local rivalries get people going. I think going back to a transtasman comp with provinces would bring some of that back.

The North Harbour team was damn good back then... if I remember correctly they beat Auckland in the round-robin match that year. So it was damn good to win that day! I remember chasing my cousin (ardent Harbour supporter) all the way back to their place, which was fairly nearby. Great memories!

I would have been 12.

Yeah easily the best team we have had. Bunce, Little, Ant Strachan, Blair Larsen, Glen Osbourne Graham Dowd and others.

I was 17 at the time that was my last year of high school i remember it well. I went down there with a bunch of guys i used to play rugby with at school.

from what you two are saying its easy to identify whats wrong with rugby in this country. lookm back on your rugby memories, which of these two is better:
" i was there at the battle of the onewa domain in 1994"
" i didn't go to any rugby because i chose to sit at home and watch the qantas wallabie play the all blacks in a meaningless friendly in tokyo"
"i didn't go to watch canterbury play in one their most memorable wins against auckland because i sat and home watched some rowing (which was for a 5 minute period my favourite sport"

Fair enough i'll take your word on that as a palmy boy. Personally i find that a bit strange. As a North Harbour supporter i can't get into supporting the Blues pretty much all of my mates are the same. They mean nothing to me and that's just across the bridge. I can only speak from a North Harbour perspective when the Blues come across to play games over here not many turn up. For a lot of us It's not our team. The whole thing seems a bit farcical i mean for 3 years there we were with the Cheifs.


Don't mean to be codesending i just can't understand how people can have any connection to a team based in another city with no local players or tardition associated with that team. What i meant that was as Palmy does not host test matches this was the highest standard of rugby you could see there live without having to jump in your car and drive to Wellington or elsewhere.


I'm not sure if it's because you are not living here but I think you are seriously underestimating how unpopular this tournament has become and how much trouble it is in. Yes there would be a revenue cut if SA opted out and also a large cut in cost of holding the tournament by not having to fly players half way around the world. However if the tournament continues to be a fizzer then how much will the likes of Newsd ltd pay for it anyway? Who wants to watch teams nobody really gives a toss about playing in empty stadiums?

However If you look at earlier posts you will notice that most of us are not just advocating a trans tasman on it's own. there would also be a champions league style knockout competition with the top four currie cup teams and maybe some from Japan. This could add numbers to potential TV viewership without the situation we have now of playing a provinvial league type tournament over three time zones .



I think the reason SANZAR is having these meetings to try and flesh out a new style of tournament is that if they keep with the status quo the revenue is going to go anyway. People are voting with their feet. This competition is in it's death throes and there have to be changes soon IMO.


I think you would if you remember back when the ABs used to play in the NPC late 90s early 2000s and the tournament was not just treated as a development comp you used to get great crowds. I can actually remember the games from back then, Ben Blair's try to keep the shield from wellington back in 2000, Otago's win in the 98 NPC, Wellington winning the 2001 final when Jonah scored that scorcher down the touchline, Taranaki winning the sheild in 96 and then defending it against Harbour (Damn them!).I honestly can't remember who the Super 14 finalists were last year(I'm pretty sure the Crusaders were invloved, buggered if i know who they played), but then again it may be just me. To me it seems sterile and atrificial.


If you want to make things a bit more even you could introduce a salary cap and distribute the TV money evenly amongst the provinces. However you might notice in many competitions around the world there are always a few teams that will dominate look at the english premiership for example. However there are also inevitably upsets. Like i said in an eralier post i'd rather support my team at the bottom of the table than somebody elses (in my case the Blues) at the top. Hell we never won anything besides the second division until the sheild a few years ago. That dosn't mean i'm not interested in watching my team because we are not likely to win the thing.

Woah that's a long post!

As I said, the Hurricanes partners really bought into the whole "regional" thing right from the beginning, for alot of reasons. And to be fair, so did the Canes board initially, spreading games around. In the early years, even Manawatu had players in the team (Bruce Hansen, Karl Williams, etc) and yes, to a degree the idea of "big" rugby in the city had alot to do with it. But the Hurricanes are still immensely popular in the regions as "their" team which is in contrast to places like North Harbour, Invercargill, Nelson. So again, its difficult for people outside the Hurricanes franchise to understand the gripe because they don't seem to have the same affection for their franchise.

I am aware of how unpopular the competition has become, and nobody denies the need for change. But just because the competition is failing badly at the gate, does not mean its failing badly on pay-TV - and I think thats an important thing to realise. News Ltd don't care if 5 people turn up, as long as people want to watch at home and pay cable fees to do so - then they gladly pay SANZAR for the rights. Its a sad reality but in effect, the broadcasters are in direct competition with the grounds for viewers - not a healthy situation in my opinion. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to think that bad gate takings won't eventually impact TV viewing numbers significantly. So something has to be done.

I must admit, I do like the sound of the Champions League (or in rugby's case, Heineken Cup) style format. There are logistical issues, and the fact that teams not qualifying in the top 4 or whatever would be laying idle for months - unless you run the competitions at the same time, but that could be a disaster if you have to try and fit in trips to the republic and back in between the NPC. But hey - every idea has its problems.

As I said, the Hurricanes partners really bought into the whole "regional" thing right from the beginning, for alot of reasons. And to be fair, so did the Canes board initially, spreading games around. In the early years, even Manawatu had players in the team (Bruce Hansen, Karl Williams, etc) and yes, to a degree the idea of "big" rugby in the city had alot to do with it. But the Hurricanes are still immensely popular in the regions as "their" team which is in contrast to places like North Harbour, Invercargill, Nelson. So again, its difficult for people outside the Hurricanes franchise to understand the gripe because they don't seem to have the same affection for their franchise.

I am aware of how unpopular the competition has become, and nobody denies the need for change. But just because the competition is failing badly at the gate, does not mean its failing badly on pay-TV - and I think thats an important thing to realise. News Ltd don't care if 5 people turn up, as long as people want to watch at home and pay cable fees to do so - then they gladly pay SANZAR for the rights. Its a sad reality but in effect, the broadcasters are in direct competition with the grounds for viewers - not a healthy situation in my opinion. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to think that bad gate takings won't eventually impact TV viewing numbers significantly. So something has to be done.

I must admit, I do like the sound of the Champions League (or in rugby's case, Heineken Cup) style format. There are logistical issues, and the fact that teams not qualifying in the top 4 or whatever would be laying idle for months - unless you run the competitions at the same time, but that could be a disaster if you have to try and fit in trips to the republic and back in between the NPC. But hey - every idea has its problems.

Well i suppose that's good that the Hurricanes other partners have bought into the concept. I'll bet there will be a good crowd for the Highlanders as they have two hometown players in Triggs and Leota in their starting line up.


I hear you on the TV rights and you are right in saying these are what gives the competition value. I can't find the TV stats for south africa (which as you point out are most important) but if you go back a few posts you will see the article in the Herald which showed that TV audiences had dropped by hundreds of thousands in NZ. I also wonder if this was such a ratings winner in South Africa then why would they put the Currie Cup first which is what they are doing. They have lucartive broadcasting contract for that. I think interest in general has waned but not having the overseas numbers i can't say that is a fact.

Also the number of spectators at the ground adds to the atmosphere which does effect the specatcle on TV.

If i was SANZAR i would band together and approach News from the angle that you are selling them three competitions rather than one (Trans Tasman, Currie Cup and Champions League) obviously they would have to work out a fair way to divide up the money.


What you could do with the champions league would be probably be what they do in the Northern hemisphere and that's put one weekend aside every four weeks or so for Champions league matches. Or you could play it post season but then it would clash with internationals like you say every idea has it's problems and they would need to work out the issues.

I guess the main benefit of this competition is it allows involvement of Japan and other countries without diluting the main provincial comp and trying to play week in week out over three or more time zones. It also allows existing foreign teams with existing support bases to see their teams up against the best in the world and brings in a few more TV viewers.

Anyway we'll see what SANZAR comes up with. The conference idea they have proposed is at least a step in the right direction in my opinion.

What you could do with the champions league would be probably be what they do in the Northern hemisphere and that's put one weekend aside every four weeks or so for Champions league matches. Or you could play it post season but then it would clash with internationals like you say every idea has it's problems and would need to work out the issues. I guess the main benefit of this cometition is it allows involvement of Japan and other countries without diluting the main provincial comp and trying to play week in week out over three or more time zones. It also allows existing foreign teams with existing support bases to see their teams up against the best in the world and brings in a few more TV viewers.

Anyway we'll see what SANZAR comes up with.

This does seem to have merit and it addresses the not so small issue of SA's insistence that that any "finalists" under a changed format are evenly spread across the 3 countries.

SANZAR wanted to move to a Top 6 finals series, with the Top 6 teams qualifying after the round-robin. SA wanted the top 2 qualifiers from each of the 3 countries instead. And that's where it stalled.

Incidentally, they our now predicting a 13,000 strong crowd for the Palmy game. If achieved (and I'd say thats a big "if"), it would eclipse the Highlanders biggest gate so far this season, that being the 12,500 crowd that turned up to see the Southern Derby a few weeks back (did that include the Shihad concert too?)

This does seem to have merit and it addresses the not so small issue of SA's insistence that that any "finalists" under a changed format are evenly spread across the 3 countries.

SANZAR wanted to move to a Top 6 finals series, with the Top 6 teams qualifying after the round-robin. SA wanted the top 2 qualifiers from each of the 3 countries instead. And that's where it stalled.

Incidentally, they our now predicting a 13,000 strong crowd for the Palmy game. If achieved (and I'd say thats a big "if"), it would eclipse the Highlanders biggest gate so far this season, that being the 12,500 crowd that turned up to see the Southern Derby a few weeks back (did that include the Shihad concert too?)

I think the only major problem is that teams down here would have to travel much longer distances than they do in the Heinekin Cup so that would have to be managed. Yes the Southern Darby did include a Shihad concert which would have lured a few more scarfies along i'd say.

It would address the sticking point you mentioned above.

Good result for the Highlanders, and at least Palmy gets some top level footy this year. Good game to get as well the Bulls are playing some great Rugby at the moment.

Good result for the Highlanders, and at least Palmy gets some top level footy this year. Good game to get as well the Bulls are playing some great Rugby at the moment.

Imagine the crowd they would have got in Napier - bigger capacity at McLean Park and a fair few Magpie reps in the squad......

But the Hurricanes are still immensely popular in the regions as "their" team which is in contrast to places like North Harbour, Invercargill, Nelson. So again, its difficult for people outside the Hurricanes franchise to understand the gripe because they don't seem to have the same affection for their franchise.

The Highlanders are usually pretty popular in Invercargill, certainly they are at the moment since they've taken to donning full Southland colours for many of their matches as opposed to the usual Otago-with-Southland-strip-on-side-of-jersey. Perhaps that was a survival decision considering the pitiful crowds of 12 people and a dog who turn up to games at Carisbrook, though (Shihad concerts notwithstanding). Considering half the team are from Southland at the moment helps too. I think that's a big difference...how many Tasman or Harbour players are in their respective Super franchises? In fact I'd say the Highlanders is the only situation where the 'minor' partner is currently providing as much of the team's viability as the 'major'.

This does seem to have merit and it addresses the not so small issue of SA's insistence that that any "finalists" under a changed format are evenly spread across the 3 countries.

SANZAR wanted to move to a Top 6 finals series, with the Top 6 teams qualifying after the round-robin. SA wanted the top 2 qualifiers from each of the 3 countries instead. And that's where it stalled.

Incidentally, they our now predicting a 13,000 strong crowd for the Palmy game. If achieved (and I'd say thats a big "if"), it would eclipse the Highlanders biggest gate so far this season, that being the 12,500 crowd that turned up to see the Southern Derby a few weeks back (did that include the Shihad concert too?)

Yeah, perhaps concerts and stuff combined could be a solution to poor crowd numbers? It seems to have worked on that occasion at least.

Auckland was really awesome for about ten years. From about 1987 to about 1998 they won about 90% of the national titles. Hell, the team from the late 80's to mid-90's was full of legends and had All Blacks from pretty much 1 to 15.

Man, those were the days. Now it's full of thickheaded boofheads that wouldn't know how to win if it snuck up behind them and nibbled on their balls.

Dalton is a tosspot.

Auckland 1985 to 1993 was the best provincial rugby team i have seen. They held the ranfurly sheild for 8 years and in that time, i'm pretty sure, lost one competitive match (To NSW in 1989) in that time. Although i could be wrong about that.

They also drew with Harbour 9 all that same year at Onewa, Walter Little kicked all the points as a 17 year old still playing for Hato Petera high school. That was like a victory.

I hated their guts but they were amazing. Kirk, Fox, Kirwan, The Whettons, Zinzan Brooke,Robin Brooke, Michael Jones, Terry Wright, Fitzpatrick, Mcdowell, Drake and there were others as well.

Frank Bunce could not even get a look in he was on the bench which is why he came over to the Shore. Most teams could not get within 20 points of them. The Crusaders of the last decade have been fantastic but i think this team was better.

Yeah I remember that team. 1989 was the year I first went to Auckland NPC games... the team was so fantastic that half the crowd would change ends at half-time, so they could watch Auckland's tries close up in the second half. My Dad and I always sat in the terraces, which Auckland would usually play towards in the 2nd half. So we'd see plenty of tries close up.

Zinzan Brooke generally scored at least 2 push-over tries per match.

A great team... McDowell, Fitzpatrick, Fatiolofa, G.Whetton, Marty or Robin Brooke, A. Whetton, Jones, Z. Brooke Brett Iti, Fox, McCahill, Stanley, Wright, Kirwan.... geez I can almost remember the whole team. Matthew Ridge at fullback even! Craig Innes & Inga Tuigamala somewhere in there too!

Apart from Brett Iti basically the whole team played for the All Blacks at some point. No wonder they kicked everyone's ass.

Actually Brett Iti was unlucky not to be an All Black at the time. I think he went to league.

Yep they were amazing and pretty frustrating to watch your team play against them. One of the best scrums i have seen. Zinzan Brooke scored a truckload of pushover tries.

I remember the game against Canterbury i think it was 1990 and Canterbury lost their hooker, John Buchan to injury and the bought on a replacement who they said had not played hooker and for the rest of the game had free kicks instead of scrums they ran Auckland pretty close.

It turned out after the game that the guy who came on was a former NZ colts hooker.

Yeah Phil Cropper! I was at that match, probably the weirdest game I've ever been to, as in those days you could do a drop-kick from a free-kick. Buchan actually got sent off for kicking, and was grumpy as hell about the whole thing so told Phil Cropper to say he wasn't a hooker.

Phil Cropper! That was his name, thanks i was trying to remember. I think he had a peroxide blond leathel weapon style mullet.

Auckland 1985 to 1993 was the best provincial rugby team i have seen. They held the ranfurly sheild for 8 years and in that time, i'm pretty sure, lost one competitive match (To NSW in 1989) in that time. Although i could be wrong about that.

They also drew with Harbour 9 all that same year at Onewa, Walter Little kicked all the points as a 17 year old still playing for Hato Petera high school. That was like a victory.

I hated their guts but they were amazing. Kirk, Fox, Kirwan, The Whettons, Zinzan Brooke,Robin Brooke, Michael Jones, Terry Wright, Fitzpatrick, Mcdowell, Drake and there were others as well.

Frank Bunce could not even get a look in he was on the bench which is why he came over to the Shore. Most teams could not get within 20 points of them. The Crusaders of the last decade have been fantastic but i think this team was better.

The team in the late 80's was the best for sure. But the team in the mid 90's was damn awesome as well.

Auckland NPC Titles (prior to it changing to Air NZ Cup which they won in 07)

1982, 84,85,87,88,89,90,93,94,95,96,99,02,03,05

A nice run. Pity the Air NZ Cup is pretty crap these days, and lost its charm. The S14 is where its at now, and the Blues have underperformed there it has to be said. Only one championship this decade. Poor.

air nz cup/npc whatever you went to your local ground and supported your team
super 14 you go for entertainment. quite pathetic really

^^ Yep well summed up. that's exactly the point i'm trying to make. I can watch super 14 and if it's a good game i'll enjoy watching if it's on after all i am a rugby fan but i don't really care about it and i won't go out of my way to watch it.

I can watch a game between the Blues and Chiefs or Hurricanes and not give a shit who wins. That's the difference.

The team in the late 80's was the best for sure. But the team in the mid 90's was damn awesome as well.

Auckland NPC Titles (prior to it changing to Air NZ Cup which they won in 07)

1982, 84,85,87,88,89,90,93,94,95,96,99,02,03,05

A nice run. Pity the Air NZ Cup is pretty crap these days, and lost its charm. The S14 is where its at now, and the Blues have underperformed there it has to be said. Only one championship this decade. Poor.

Yeah when Graham Henry took over coaching they were also very strong when players like Olo Brown, Lee Stensness, Carlos Spencer,Eroni Clarke and others came on the scene. I remember when Ireland toured in 92 and Auckland put about 50 points on them.

club rugby starts again this weekend. can't wait.

I must admit i don't see a lot of club rugby these days. I've only been down to my old club to watch a game maybe 5 times since i stopped playing in about 2001.

The problem is that club rugby has been weakend so much over the last 10 or so years as well. The few games that i have seen of senior rugby looked like what would have been senior reserve standard in the past in my opinion.

Chris Rattue: Warriors at Eden Park? Be very afraid



By Chris Rattue


The Warriors were once a train wreck that somehow managed to stay on the rails which is at least better than Auckland's efforts in the field of sports stadiums.

The league team have survived most things, including a former chief executive who wanted to run a rugby team that would nick some of the club's star players. You couldn't dream up a better sporting "sleeping with the enemy" scenario if you tried.

Now, according to a Sunday newspaper, Eden Park is wooing the Warriors to make the famous old rugby and cricket ground their new home. Be afraid, be very afraid.

The Blues and Auckland rugby chief executive Andy Dalton was quoted in the Sunday Star-Times as saying "there's every chance" the Warriors will make Eden Park their permanent home.

This story is enough to make you weep. Auckland fires the diggers up first and puts its brain into gear later.

Once again, the city's planning is shown up to be inept because we should have known about the possibility of the Warriors moving to Eden Park during the debate on the ground's future and revamp. We are being prevented from making informed decisions.


Had Auckland got the order of events right, the city might have envisaged a dual rugby and league ground built for the purpose, helped cricket to find a smaller, modern facility elsewhere and given the citizens a stadium situation they deserved.

Instead, after rebuilding Eden Park so it is still not wholly suitable for either rugby or cricket, we find there might have been a way to make it a purpose-built football home.

Rugby and league are, after all, the sports that draw the regular crowds. The Super 14 might yet be expanded, but big cricket games are few and far between. A world-class football venue should be the overwhelming priority.

There was an unsupported statement in yesterday's story that "unprofitable" Mt Smart Stadium, the scene of Beckhamgate and owned by the Auckland Regional Council, would be scrapped as the new Auckland super city merged its resources. The story focused on ground rights issues and money.

What about the viewing experience and atmosphere though, issues that should be paramount in these discussions?

Eden Park is marginal as a decent rugby ground and unsuited to league. Because it will remain a cricket ground - and not a very good one - its circular playing area pushes football spectators away from the sidelines.

Visually, rugby union survives (just) at Eden Park because it works as a broad brush game. But in league, you want to get as close as possible to the dots. That's why league works so well on television, because the action is confined to small areas and ballwork and skills are always visible to be caught by the camera.

Dalton said: "It makes sense to have just the one venue in the city."."

Well, no it doesn't actually, not when the one venue is flawed.

What Auckland is trying to do now is make the best of an unholy stadium mess, but the Warriors should think very carefully indeed before they take the Eden Park plunge.

League is a gladiatorial game. It works best in the claustrophobic atmospheres of proper football stadiums.

The Warriors' current home, Mt Smart Stadium, is not perfect. But Mt Smart is still better as a league venue than Eden Park. It drums up a good atmosphere and works well on television. The Warriors have established an identity there.

The numbers don't add up for the Warriors at Eden Park.

The ground's rugby capacity has been around 45,000 but will rise towards 60,000 under the revamp. The Warriors drag in about 20,000 spectators on their good days, but the attendances rely heavily on the team's form and I don't believe Eden Park would encourage new viewers.

Numbers have slumped below 10,000 when they have had a run of bad results and the down times are inevitable under the NRL's salary cap system. Or put it this way - the salary cap means there will never be an era in which the Warriors are so consistently dominant that they would make more than a decent scratch in Eden Park's new capacity.

The Sydney Football Stadium has had a capacity similar to Eden Park's 45,000 but the SFS is built for the football codes, with the stands parallel to the sidelines. And even the SFS is a lonely place during low-attendance matches, when it also provides a poor atmosphere for television viewers.

If the Warriors want to continue selling their sport as the highly charged alternative to rugby, which is stumbling in Auckland, then it should be very wary of Eden Park.

Can you imagine the drab, soulless atmosphere at Eden Park, should the day arrive when the ground holds say 55,000 people and there are just 8000 there to watch the Warriors play Penrith?

There is also talk of shifting playoff games, as early as this year, to Eden Park in the name of making more money. Once again, I would urge caution. The most important part of a playoff game is winning it. The best thing that could happen to league in this country is for the Warriors to win the NRL. To leave Mt Smart for Eden Park would surrender the full value of home advantage in the playoffs.

The Warriors are familiar with Mt Smart and a packed and enthusiastic audience close to the touchlines should give them an enormous playoff lift. Their pre-match routines should be protected.

The Warriors' director of football, John Hart, was indirectly quoted in the story as saying any decision on the club's future home was a long way off.

Hopefully, the Warriors will come to their senses in that time and fight for a better home than Eden Park. Moving there sounds very grand, but it could derail a lot of their good work of late.

Can't see it happening as the current situation works well for the Warriors. It would be a scheduling nightmare I reckon, trying to sort out sharing the Stadium with the Blues, All Blacks and Auckland NPC teams.

Eden Park is marginal as a decent rugby ground and unsuited to league.
how could the same ground be good for rugby and bad for league

Visually, rugby union survives (just) at Eden Park because it works as a broad brush game. But in league, you want to get as close as possible to the dots. That's why league works so well on television, because the action is confined to small areas and ballwork and skills are always visible to be caught by the camera.
so in rugby it is good to be so far away from the field? (especially when one needs to be up close to the rucks (although they don't really exist anymore) and scrums

League is a gladiatorial game. It works best in the claustrophobic atmospheres of proper football stadiums.
and rugby doesn't work best in 'proper football stadiums'?

Can you imagine the drab, soulless atmosphere at Eden Park, should the day arrive when the ground holds say 55,000 people and there are just 8000 there to watch the Warriors play Penrith?
given that your a sports journalist i'm sure you were thre at some of the auckland air nz cup games where they had crowds that were lower than 8,000 (given that there is no atmosphere at rugby games in this country)


that has to be some of the dumbest crap i've ever heard. it is great the warriors have their own ground but if mt smart is losing money then whats the point of keeping it? i hope by 'losing money' such things as that la galaxy friendly and the councils inability to get a sponsor are excluded from such statement

I actually have to kind of agree with Rattue here. Eden Park is just shit ground full stop it's not particularly good for for Rugby or League in my opinion. It's a bunch of mismatched stands plonked together in the middle of suburbia. Because it also has to host cricket matches the gound itself is a lot bigger than those purpose built for Rugby and League. Therefore in many areas of the ground you are a long way from the action.

Mt Smart is a great ground to watch league at, I was actually there yesterday for the Souths game. In the stands you are always pretty near the action and when you get it packed out or even half to three quarters full there is a fantastic atmostphere that you could never get at Eden Park with the same size crowd dispersed around a much bigger ground and much further away from the action.

It would be a real shame if this happened.

that has to be some of the dumbest crap i've ever heard. it is great the warriors have their own ground but if mt smart is losing money then whats the point of keeping it? i hope by 'losing money' such things as that la galaxy friendly and the councils inability to get a sponsor are excluded from such statement

Totally agree.

Of course, league is on such a high, a better game, and "rivalling" rugby's support, as Rattue, Graeme Lowe and (Warriors boss) John Hart have been dribbling on about over the last few weeks. So getting substantial crowds - performances permitting - for a one-town team (popn 1.5m) shouldn't be an issue should it?

Unless, of course, the league commentators are taking chip-on-the-shoulder bollocks, again...

I personally can't wait for the Warriors to start losing again. I'm finding this NRL bandwagon rather nauseating.

League is a popularity sport. A bit like sailing. How many people care about sailing these days? Yet when we held the America's Cup it was suddenly very popular.

No surprise the Warriors are getting a lot of attention, with some big name players, some good results and a poorly performing rugby union team in the city.

Once (if) the Blues get on a winning streak and the Warriors go back to being average, the Warriors will go back to shitty crowds and the Blues will get 30k+ gates every game.

^^

Woah and you guys reckon the leaguies have chips on their shoulders? :lol:

I must have read that article differently than everyone else. I didn't read it as Rattue attacking rugby and saying league was great, just that the Warriors moving to Eden Park was a bad idea.

Oh well, while we are on the subject saw this on xtra:

Jumping on the band wagon or just plain reality?
April 06, 2009The great NRL versus Super 14 debate, it used to be the exception to the rule.

By that I mean, not until the last couple of seasons has this comparison grown to become as prevalent a topic as it is today.

Everywhere, and I mean everywhere I find myself discussing sport, the subject becomes the priority.

Typical of the frequency of this debate was meeting a chap I was introduced to for the first time last week.

Everything about him gave away his snooty upbringing with the way he spoke and a somewhat arrogant demeanour.

But what wasn't so predictable was his pre-occupation with the Warriors when it came to talking sport.

A few seasons back, I'm certain this bloke would hardly have given rugby league a thought.

But the other night, he was mainly concerned that three heavyweights, namely Steve Price, Brent Tate and Manu Vatuvei would all be missing against South Sydney.

He then trotted out the all-too-familiar refrain of late that rugby just wasn't doing it for him now and while he maintained an interest in the Super 14, the X-factor had gone.

The reasons why this rampant apathy exists towards our national game have been extensively aired recently.

Yahoo!Xtra prompted a prolific response to the question, "Which appeals most, the NRL or the Super 14?"

The response showed that at the very least, the NRL was now seen as a very welcome alternative to the year's rugby menu.

In summary, the reasons given why rugby has lost its lustre can be summed up as a repetitive, boring Super 14 and Tri-Nations format, the ELVs have added nothing except further confusion, the constant, unfathomable stoppages and far too much of it nearly all year round.

At the same time that these negative perceptions of rugby have gained momentum, rugby league has increased its appeal as a more credible, more viable preference.

League's new-found fans here have said that they are attracted to the comparative simplicity, to the ongoing, larger doses of action, to the superb fitness levels and to the successes of both the Warriors and the Kiwis last year.

So much so in fact, snooty types like the latent snob I met last week are putting their biases and upbringings aside and simply giving in to what appeals most.

It saddens me to see rugby's decline. As I've said before, this is a game I've been fortunate to see tests played in eight countries around the world.

But I'm a realist enough to recognise when dysfunctionalism is winning the day and some significant form of rescue is needed.

Overall, it will be a relief when one set of rules governs the game wherever it's played. That reality can't come soon enough.

Regarding the Super 14 in particular, both Australia and South Africa are vying for a new team of their own to make up a new Super 15 format.

John O'Neill has also proposed further revision where there will be a round-robin competition plus the teams will also play teams from their own countries again.

He wants this extended playing programme to begin in March and not end until August which he agrees will interfere with South Africa's Currie Cup and New Zealand's Air NZ Cup, but he believes more fully professional rugby like the Super 14 is what is required as well as the obvious benefit to Australian rugby.

And now Sean Fitzpatrick, who has become increasingly prone to speaking his mind from London, has stated emphatically that the Super 14 is far too loose and detrimental to the All Blacks' chances of success.

In brief, he blames the ELVs for this destructive, silly, helter-skelter rugby as he sees it.

Now that there has been so much discussion on the subject of late from both fans and luminaries alike, I'd like to know where you stand on the subject.

Or more specifically, what are your predictions as to what will be the actual changes to a game in undoubted strife?

What on earth was all that trying to say? All I got out of it was, league is only popular when rugby shoots itself in the foot....which is probably right. There's a reason the sport has barely moved outside 3 territories in 100yrs....

I too didn't read the article as attacking rugby. But the league media have been harping on over the last few weeks (all 2wks of the NRL season so far) about how popular league is at the moment, how its a better game to watch, how (apparently) kids are leaving rugby in droves to play the 13man code, and how the future has never been brighter.

Now, they are offered the prospect of a ground to tap into this apparent increased popularity, but already predict its failure, not because they might be telling porkies, but because the dimensions of the ground - a rugby ground - won't be suitable.

Sounds like a Tui ad. Yeah, right.

I think what it is trying to say is that interest in the Super 14 has waned in a big way. Jeez there has seemed to be a lot of reactionary comments on this.

The leaguies have always harped on about how they think their game is better. Who cares. the reality is League is as big now as it will ever be. BTW Who was saying that kids are turning to league in droves?

The original article did not say the move to Eden park was to capitalise on popularity but because Mt Smart apparently does not stack up financially and would be bowled/sold/turned in to somthing else by the council. The article was saying that playing in a much bigger stadium would mean some atmosphere would be lost. I agree the stuff about Eden park being ok for Rugby and not league was nonsense. The place is a shithole and no good for either in my opinion.

I don't think the Warriors have told any porkies. They have never claimed they could attract more then 25K or so.

Were the Warriors to move from their compact home ground to one three times the size they probably would lose some of the great atmosphere they get there. Which would be a shame.

Incidentally, what is the deal with Growers Stadium, home of the Steelers for the ANZ Cup. Quality? Capacity? etc....

I know it was being upgraded and they are due to return there for day games. I also read recently that they may have got funding to install lighting, so night games can be played there?

Maybe a potential alternative to Eden Park for the Warriors?

Not sure actually. That would be a possibility. They may look at North Harbour stadium as well, they do play pre - season games there and the Kiwis have played test matches there. Although league has a strong following in South Auckland so maybe growers would be a better place.

It's all speculation anyway. Don't think anything has been decided.

Incidentally, what is the deal with Growers Stadium, home of the Steelers for the ANZ Cup. Quality? Capacity? etc....

I know it was being upgraded and they are due to return there for day games. I also read recently that they may have got funding to install lighting, so night games can be played there?

Maybe a potential alternative to Eden Park for the Warriors?
no it seems to be ages away from where most warriors fan live (or so i've been told), seems to be in the middle of nowhere anyway. to get that place up to scratch for warriors games it would probably need a new 10,000 seat grandstand which there doesn't seem to be area for around the ground and does defeat the point of cost saving.
sucks they lost

There's nothing wrong with Mt Smart being home to the Warriors.

^^ I agree Mt Smart is perfect for them but the issue is it may not be around in future. Word is that because the stadium is in debt and not turing a profit the ARC/Auckland council may ditch it. Also there seems to be a feeling that two 20,000 + stadiums is enough for the Auckland region and North Harbour stadium is highly used (mostly for conferences and corporate functions).

So unless the Warriors want to buy it they would have to find somewhere else to use.

The ARC just built a new stand for it (within the last few years) so I doubt anyone would be ditching it quite yet.

I'm sure it's far more economically viable than North Harbour Stadium, for example.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/2315602/Warriors-on-their-way-to-Eden-Park

See above article. The new stand was built about 7 years ago and is probably one of the reasons debt is an issue. I disagree the stadium is more economically viable than North Harbour as it has no facilties for conferences and corporate functions like Eden park or North Harbour stadium and that's where a large chunk of their income comes from. According to Terry Maddaford from the Herald speaking on Radio Sport last night North Harbour is actually the most used stadium in the country for this reason.

Like Mt Smart North Harbour still has debt however because it has ways of generating income other than just sporting events and concerts it would be more econmically viable in my opinion.

I know that some corporate stuff happens at Mt Smart stadium. The resource consent hearing for the Manukau Harbour Crossing Project was held there, for example.

Yep there are some small things held there. However Mt Smart does not have the purpose built facilites that the other stadiums have. The maximum amount of people that can be hosted in their "corporate suites" (boxes) is about 30.

http://www.mtsmartstadium.co.nz/subsites/mt-smart/function-room-hire/corporate-suites.cfm

While North harbour has a variety of corporate louges that can host between 200 and 1000 people depending on the event. It even caters for weddings and trade shows. So there is no way Mt Smart could generate the same kind of revenue.


http://www.functioncentre.co.nz/?s1=OUR%20VENUE&s2=Our%20Rooms



Besides that although North Harbour's location is not the best it's not slap bang in the middle of a heavy industrial area like Mt Smart. Which is kind of in no man's land surrounded by factories. North Harbour is at least in close proximity to a few shops, pubs and restaurants. In the future there will be more.

It looks like if one of them is going to get the chop it will be Mount Smart. Then again it's all hearsay at the moment maybe the council will keep it and there will be no need for the Warriors to move. I do agree it's the best place for their home ground.

I think North Harbour will always remain given the need for such a facility on that side of the harbour where there is booming growth. Its south of the bridge where there is a bit of a glut.

Perhaps turn one of them into a test-specific cricket ground for Auckland? :) Kidding - neither location is ideal......

What's the deal with those plans, anyway....

As far as i know the plan is to develop Eden park outer oval as a test venue capable of holding about 10,000. However i don't think they can start on that until the main ground is finished.

http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/news/article/-/5498451/toulon-weighs-muliaina-offer

Looks like Mils Muliaina might not be around for 2011. Can't blame him, who would turn down this offer. $900,000 a year to live in the south of France compared with much less pay and living in Hamilton.

As far as i know the plan is to develop Eden park outer oval as a test venue capable of holding about 10,000. However i don't think they can start on that until the main ground is finished.

Never been to the Outer Oval, so can't comment on its suitability.

Lets hope that, for our largest city, its something a little more "legacy" than what's now being proposed for Christchurch; Hagley Park, but with "temporary seating" used for test matches.

I think it has the potential to be a good test venue similar to Hamilton's Seddon park. Totally agree, i really hope they don't just do it on the cheap and put a bit of temporary seating around the edge.

Are there any pictures around of what's planned for Hagley park?

This is getting ridiculous. How do SA think they will sustain a 6th franchise when 3 of their existing ones are languising at the bottom of the table. The Cheetahs have won one game this season. A sixth super franchise for them would receive weekly hidings and do nothing for the competition. In fact would devalue it even further.

On the plus side it looks like they have compromised and will allow the competiton to run into July which could mean a march start wich is better than the present aituation.


South African backing for Super 15
Yahoo!Xtra Sport / Neil Reid - April 17, 2009, 9:54 am



South African officials have confirmed their support for the creation of a Super 15, but only on their own terms.

SA Rugby, the commercial arm of the South African Rugby Union, has given its backing to Super Rugby expansion.

But it has again stressed that it will not tolerate any changes that would see the Super Rugby season over-lap with its domestic Currie Cup competition.

And South Africa is also insistent that it secures the hosting rights for the expansion team.

Despite the expansion plan creating three five-strong conferences to be based in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, SA Rugby says it should get a sixth franchise; with Australia retaining just four sides.

In a statement released by SARU, it stated its "board accepted a recommendation from Andy Marinos, the acting managing director of SA Rugby, on South Africa's approach to the season structure of a planned new Super 15 competition to be introduced in 2011".

The release then quotes SA Rugby chairman Jan Marias stating: "This has been a long process with all partners having to compromise in some directions.

"We are prepared to extend the Super Rugby competition into July, for instance, but the integrity of the Currie Cup competition is not something that we can throw away.

"Major matches in the Currie Cup attract audiences that are larger than the equivalent Super Rugby matches and the tournament is the lifeblood of our 14 provinces.

"It is also very important to South African rugby that we secure a Super Rugby franchise for the Eastern Cape and we will be tendering for a sixth team if we reach agreement on future structures."

Under the plan approved by SA Rugby, the Super 15 could be played through to July, in the process over-lapping the June test window.

The New Zealand and Australian Rugby Unions have both suggested that the June tests could be played mid-week.

Another option was for the Super Rugby to have a three-week break in June. However, with SA Rugby refusing for the season to go on beyond July, that proposition seems highly unlikely.

The details of South Africa's position will now be communicated to Australia and New Zealand as part of an on-going series of discussions and workshops in the search for an agreed position.

Earlier in the week it was reported that New Zealand and Australian officials are continuing with back-up plans for a Super Rugby competition minus any South African involvement.

Sanzar's three partners are running out of time to find a status quo before the body has to present its template for the future to broadcasters on June 30.

The Sanzar working party will convene again later this month, before a full Sanzar board meeting in May where it was hoped a shared vision would be agreed upon.

But with the South African Rugby Union continuing to threaten to stymie plans for a Super 15, including a conference system and an enlarged play-off series, officials from the New Zealand and Australian rugby unions are reportedly increasing work on their contingency plan.

It would involve five franchises from both New Zealand and Australia, plus sides based in Japan and a Pacific Islands team.

A 22-week Super 15 would see it overlap the Currie Cup given the NZRU and ARU's preferred March kick-off.

That is something that SARU is unwilling to see happen, given the fact they have sold its broadcasting rights through to 2011 and told host broadcasters that the product will not be watered down.

Instead SARU last month tabled its proposal which has been dubbed the "Sandton option".

It would see the creation of a 16-week competition, which would allow for conference-style rugby.

The proposal allows for a three-week break during the June test window.

Under the present broadcasting deal, Sanzar must present its proposal to its broadcasters on June 30.

Broadcasting bosses then have 60 days to go through the proposal before any negotiation period.


Send this Story Via Email » Via Yahoo Messenger » Print this story » Add to: Del.icio.us Facebook Digg

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7821/americas16.jpg

Source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/slideshows/)

It looks as though Eden Park may host a state of origin match. Possibly in 2011. That would be very popular, and certain to draw a good crowd. It was just a mater of time before New Zealand hosted an origin game. :banana::cheers:

new south wales vs queensland in new zealand wtf?
before getting such a game the nzrl needs to get some more tests here

Rugby League in New Zealand is in the process of undergoing some major restructuring. At present player numbers are down to around 17,000 which is well below the peak of 40,000 in the mid 90s. The game is barely played in the provinces or at high school level. Efforts are being made to promote age group competitions to primary school kids to try to get the code more popular. It is a shame that more wasn't done in the past to get another team in the Nrl. The Aussies are very keen at expanding the comp in their own backyard and don't mind recruiting Kiwi talent as well. What would be good is adopting a struggling Nrl team like the Sharks which is cash strapped and sharing a homeground in Sydney and New Zealand. This has happened in AFL with teams like the Brisbane Lions. It would be a cheaper option than starting a new club from scratch.:banana::lol:

^^ Really don't know how that would work. Can't see a whole lot of people turning up to watch some aussie NRL club. League just aint that popular here. Don't get me wrong it has a strong following particularly in parts of Auckland, but not enough to support that idea.

I think i would be a disaster for the club, i really can't see how they would make any money flying over here to play in front of small crowds every second or third week. Plus the club's Aussie fans would hate the idea with a passion.

Even the Warrior only draw about 20,000 when they are winning. When they are not they attract about 5000 - 9000 fans and that's a team that's actually represting NZ (or a part of NZ at least).

As for the game world wide I think league is pretty much as big as it will ever be. I really can't see how it can expand.

Rugby League has quite a bit of potential as a global sport. A new competition in the U.S.A. involving players nearing the end of their careers could well and trully catapult the game globally. Because the rules are so easy to understand television audiences could easily catch on in the U.S. where Rugby Union is reasonably strong and Rugby League already has a small presence already. The last world cup which the kiwis won was a success with many nations showing real potential.
Countries like Fiji and Papua New Guinea showed real potential as future league strongholds. While other parts of the U.K. such as Ireland and Scotland also showed that they also had potential to become much stronger at league. Many countries such as South Africa, Japan, Argentina, Italy and other countries where rugby union is well established could easily adopt rugby league. :banana:

Yeah sounds nice but will never happen. It always cracks me up that league followers think it will one day be the world's game they just need to find out about it, and yet it's never grown bigger than it is now in 100 years.

Firstly it does not matter whether or not League is popular in Fiji or Papua New Guinea. It's always been big in Papua.

It has been in England for a century and has never grown outside a few towns in northern England. Even in most of those towns it's popular but still number two behind football.

In Australia it's only really popular in two states, generally speaking Victorians, South Australians and Western Australians don't really give a toss about league. They are mad about aussie rules. Ever wonder why there are no victorian palyers coming through into the Melbourne storm?

Most of the teams in last years "world cup" were not genuine i think you will find that most of the irish and scottish teams were made up of players from the north of England, the rest of the teams there were made up of a lot of aussies and kiwis.

Walsh retires under employment cloud
NZPA - April 27, 2009, 2:34 pm

NZPA ©

New Zealand's longest serving professional referee Steve Walsh has retired from his job with the New Zealand Rugby Union following an enquiry into a personal employment issue.

Walsh was reportedly involved in an incident involving alcohol at a Sanzar conference in Sydney in December.

He has been unwilling to comment on the incident, which the Herald on Sunday reported involved Walsh appearing drunk at a morning session at the conference and being asked to leave.

An NZRU statement in January said he wouldn't be considered by the NZRU for the opening month of Super 14 matches. Since then, Walsh's name has been missing from the appointment list.

Walsh, who refereed his first test match in June 1998, is New Zealand's most experienced international referee.

He has extensive experience at domestic, Super 14 and international level, having refereed in both Six Nations and Tri Nations test matches.

He was appointed to the last two Rugby World Cup tournaments.

Recent media reports have indicated Walsh may consider aligning himself with another overseas union although his comments in an NZRU statement today suggest otherwise.

"I have enjoyed my time in refereeing immensely; however there is a significant commitment involving a lot of travel and time away from home which I found increasingly difficult dealing with," he said in a statement today.

"I may at some stage in the future want to return to refereeing at the top level and if I choose to do that I know what is required -- but right now I have a different focus."

NZRU General Manager Professional Rugby Neil Sorensen today paid tribute to Walsh for his decision to step down from refereeing and for his record.

"Steve has been an outstanding referee and has officiated some of the biggest matches in world rugby, demonstrating his talent and representing New Zealand on the international stage. At his best, he was a truly world-class referee."

Walsh made his national referee squad debut in 1996 and in total refereed 212 first class games, including 35 tests.

Tentative good news. Although their best days are probably behind them Im certain these two guys would still have plenty to add to NZ cricket. ICL are idiots- a one year cooling period!




Rebel cricketers Shane Bond, Craig McMillan, Lou Vincent and Darryl Tuffey could soon be back playing for NZ. :
Cricket: Bond's international future revived by India's ICL backdown
Former New Zealand fast bowler Shane Bond says he remains 'interested' in a return to international cricket after another barrier was broken down today.

India's powerful BCCI announced it would welcome back players from the Indian Cricket League (ICL) after a one-year "cooling period" if they cut ties with the unsanctioned competition.

New Zealand Cricket (NZC) chief executive Justin Vaughan went a step further and said he would waive the cooling period, thereby opening the way for Bond's immediate return.

Bond, the pace spearhead who played the last of his 17 tests and 67 one-day internationals against South Africa in November 2007, greeted today's news with caution but refused to shut the door on a potential comeback.

"As far as I'm aware, I'm not available for international cricket yet," Bond told the Cricinfo website.

"It will all depend on what is happening with the ICL. At this stage I'm still contracted to them, but if that was to change then I would have to have a look at things.

"I am interested in playing at the top level."

Bond and his former test new ball partner Daryl Tuffey loom as the only realistic candidates to return to the Black Caps, should they cut ties with the troubled ICL.

The tournament's future remains uncertain amid the global financial crisis, with reports of players not receiving payments in recent months. Bond, 33, recently spoke of his desire to return to first-class cricket next season after his body came through a limited workload in 2008-09 with no recurrence of his ongoing back problems.

"The hardest thing this year is that my season only lasted two months. That was pretty hard work for me, because it wasn't long enough. I have been training for five weeks, and actually had my first bowl today, so I'm in pretty good shape.

"I would like to play the (first-class) season. I don't want the big break. That's my intention. But until I learn more about (the BCCI's amnesty), it doesn't really change anything for me at this stage."

New Zealand's next major scheduled tour is to Sri Lanka in August and September.

I give up. These guys are fucking morons. If Sout Africa opts out we won't get the transtasman comp many of us have advocated. We'll get a "harlem globe trotters" team in melbourne and similar teams from Japan. Awesome i'll be reaching for the off button on my remote. I'm struggling to care now, that will trun me off for good, and i am a life long rugby fan. Why would i cheer for a composite team i don't really care about against a team that represents nobody. That's called an exhibition match.

Did anyone notice that the Heinekin cup semi final in dublin between Munster and Leinster(Where Rugby ranks third at best after gaelic football and soccer) attracted 80,000 to croke park (please don't mention population, Ireland has a similar population to NZ). Yet we struggle to get anyone to a super 14 game here where it's the national sport. Wonder why? Because they are not obsessed with attracting the casual fan, they have proper teams that supporters actually have a connection with. They realise that a game of rugby does not have to be a 100 point try fest to be entertaining, and that trying make rugby appeal to everyone just alienates your proper rugby supporters the ones who actually sustain the sport.


Melbourne-based Super team to include kiwis?
NZPA - May 5, 2009, 4:03 pm

NZPA ©

A Melbourne-based joint venture involving New Zealand and Australian players in an expanded Super rugby competition is being mooted by Australian Rugby Union (ARU) chief executive John O'Neill.

As the three Sanzar partners prepare to meet in Dublin on May 14 to try to thrash out an agreement for a post-2010 competition, O'Neill said Melbourne was a leading contender for an expansion team.

"Just thinking outside the square, if you're getting to market saturation point in New Zealand then that's something we should look at," O'Neill told The Australian newspaper.

"When a New Zealand team plays an Australian team in Super 14, the ratings are fabulous but when two NZ teams play each other, the ratings here also are very strong and that's because there are about a million New Zealanders living in Australia.

"When the All Blacks were based in Melbourne during the 2003 World Cup, they received tremendous support, as have Crusaders' pre-season matches against the Western Force."

Plans for the Super 14 in 2011 remain in limbo after fraught negotiations between the Sanzar partners, leaving Australia and New Zealand making contingency plans for a breakaway 10-team trans-Tasman competition.

If a Super 15 is approved, South Africa want a sixth franchise, the Southern Kings, as the extra team.

O'Neill said while Melbourne was the favourite if an Australian team were added, there was a formal expression of interest from the Gold Coast Rugby Union.

Prominent Gold Coast businessman Terry Jackman said preliminary steps had been taken to set up a consortium to challenge Melbourne for the licence. He said a new team would be a composite side made up of players from Japan, the Pacific Islands and Australia.

Queensland Rugby Union chairman Peter Lewis, meanwhile, questioned whether it was wise for Australia to pursue a fifth franchise.

"If you look at where the Australian teams are on the Super 14 ladder, you'll realise Australia will be lucky to get even one team into the play-offs," Lewis told The Australian.

"So it's a question that needs to be asked: do we have the playing resources to man a fifth Australian team. "

The Sanzar board meeting on May 14 needs to come up with a competition proposal for a new broadcasting deal to News Ltd and SuperSport by June 30.

South Africa hasn't budged on its wish to start the competition in February and keep it at one full round to accommodate its prized Currie Cup competition.

New Zealand and Australia want it to start in March and make it an extended conference-based competition, with the June inbound tests fitted in the middle.

"They believe we need to give and Australia and New Zealand believe they (South Africa) need to give," NZRU chief executive Steve Tew said last week.

"We are acknowledging that the impasse is still there and ... the clock is ticking."

South African Rugby Union acting managing director Andy Marinos has suggested arbitration or mediation might be needed to reach a solution.

Melbourne Globetrotters vs the Japan Allstars eh.

Honestly, how the hell do they think people will even be remotely interested in this crap?

I give up. These guys are fucking morons. If Sout Africa opts out we won't get the transtasman comp many of us have advocated. We'll get a "harlem globe trotters" team in melbourne and similar teams from Japan. Awesome i'll be reaching for the off button on my remote. I'm struggling to care now, that will trun me off for good, and i am a life long rugby fan. Why would i cheer for a composite team i don't really care about against a team that represents nobody. That's called an exhibition match.

Did anyone notice that the Heinekin cup semi final in dublin between Munster and Leinster(Where Rugby ranks third at best after gaelic football and soccer) attracted 80,000 to croke park (please don't mention population, Ireland has a similar population to NZ). Yet we struggle to get anyone to a super 14 game here where it's the national sport. Wonder why? Because they are not obsessed with attracting the casual fan, they have proper teams that supporters actually have a connection with. They realise that a game of rugby does not have to be a 100 point try fest to be entertaining, and that trying make rugby appeal to everyone just alienates your proper rugby supporters the ones who actually sustain the sport.

sums it up for me
could get rid of foreign player rules which have been holding the super 14 back instead of advocating this composite team crap

^^ Yeah i'd be keen to see foreign players allowed in a bit more. That would make things a bit more interesting. Although i'd want a quota. Maybe a maximum of four or five per squad? And rather than having this kind of communist centrally controlled system perhaps we could give the provinces more power to run their own teams, recruit their own players etc. The NZRU could slice up the TV money evenly and give it to each province.

I understand that the system at the moment is built around the All Blacks being the most important and our national team is important to us but that dosn't mean the domestic competition needs to be reduced to a series of exhibition matches.

I mean what's next? Perhaps swapping a few players to the opposite team at half time if the match is getting too on sided? Or maybe to make it faster rather than having pesky scrums, lineouts and penalty kicks it could just become a giant game of bullrush. The NZRU is probably running these ideas past focus groups as we speak.

why would want a limit?
so jimmy gopperth moving from wellington to harbour is fine but there is something wrong with otago trying to get juan hernandez?
what is actually the difference? displaying such bias on something so petty is just sad for the sport; its just encouraging players to lie about their nationality and turn national sides into club sides (although i could never say the all blacks are a national side anyway)

^^ Nope under my system Otago would be free to chase Hernandez and five other foreign players if they liked. Why would you think they wouldn't from what i wrote?

The fact of the matter is the All Blacks are still important to us and we still need to develop home grown players and keep them here with the opportuntiy to play professional rugby. There may come a day when pretty much every half decent rugby player in NZ heads offshore and we have to select them from there for the national team. That will mean the end of any professional rugby competition in this tiny country. Until that day comes we need to hold on to as many quality players as we can by giving them oppotunities.

So it's although it's bias. It's not petty there is a reason for it.

Too many foreign players can hinder this. Many think this is one of the problems the England team has had with the number of the foreign players in the Guiness premeirship there has been less English talent given the chance to develop at the highest level which has effected the preformance of the national team. It's the same reason that the Serie A introduced a quota in the 1980s.

I'm not against the fact that the NZRU runs the domestic game to serve the national good. I just think they are going about it wrong. We can have an intersting and relevant domestic competition without selling out all of our tarditions and have an All Black team that is the best in the world.

And could you clarify why the All Blacks are not a national side? I don't follow.

but you just said you wanted a limit on foreign players and that could hinder such a transaction if some of their island players shooce to play for their country. do you not think it is ethically wrong that employment is discriminated on the basis of nationality? i really do doubt the effect of foreign players on these so-called 'national sides', playing against better players is only going to help the players who do play and even those who are relagated to reserves still learn alot from their foreign counterparts (although there would be less new zealanders playing overseas if the nzrfu allowed private ownership in the game). more foreign player rules more rickey fluteys playing for england

professional rugby would not die if the all blacks didn't exist, think if the way you just mentioned the game in the republic of ireland.

i don't think that the all blacks are a national side because the notion of only playing for the all blacks when you have signed a contract with the nzrfu leads me to believe it is nothing more than a club side. think of luke mcalister being able to play for 'nz' in 2007, then in 2008 he wasn't able to, then in 2009 he all of a sudden can again; what has happened? is it him being a new zealander in 2007 and 2009 but for some reason not being a new zealander in 2008; or because of a contract with the nzrfu (similar to the one say christiano ronaldo has with manchester united). brad thorn australian one year, new zealander the next and then back to being a australian again and then just for kickers he decides he is a new zealander again; who the hell changes nationality like that? alot of players change clubs like that. seen joe rokocoko advertisements for 'his fiji' on television? sounds like someone who is proud of his country. i would say nick evans is a new zealander, would you say so? if so then why can't play for his country?
Also one oftern hears about the all blacks interact with various football clubs such as ac milan last year for sponsorship purposes or steve hansen recently visiting real madrid hq to see how they ran things. i wonder why they went to clubs instead of visiting national sides such as the spanish national team?
i also like steve tew talking about the 'all black brand' god defend new zealand huh?
does one go to a new zealand game with a new zealand flag and support new zealand or
does one go to a all blacks game with a all blacks flag and support all blacks (not that anyone actually goes to these games rather most just sit at home like schmuck and watch the game on tv)
what do players and various commentators say about the all blacks? its all about the black jersey, the pride it brings and other sentimental crap. never does new zealand get mentioned in such rubbish

and where is this country 'all blacks'? or 'qantas wallabies' or 'sasol springboks' or 'ireland' or 'british and irish lions' for that matter

also i'll ask you this question: what makes you think the nzrfu can run the domestic competitions in this country?

but you just said you wanted a limit on foreign players and that could hinder such a transaction if some of their island players shooce to play for their country. do you not think it is ethically wrong that employment is discriminated on the basis of nationality? i really do doubt the effect of foreign players on these so-called 'national sides', playing against better players is only going to help the players who do play and even those who are relagated to reserves still learn alot from their foreign counterparts (although there would be less new zealanders playing overseas if the nzrfu allowed private ownership in the game). more foreign player rules more rickey fluteys playing for england

professional rugby would not die if the all blacks didn't exist, think if the way you just mentioned the game in the republic of ireland.

i don't think that the all blacks are a national side because the notion of only playing for the all blacks when you have signed a contract with the nzrfu leads me to believe it is nothing more than a club side. think of luke mcalister being able to play for 'nz' in 2007, then in 2008 he wasn't able to, then in 2009 he all of a sudden can again; what has happened? is it him being a new zealander in 2007 and 2009 but for some reason not being a new zealander in 2008; or because of a contract with the nzrfu (similar to the one say christiano ronaldo has with manchester united). brad thorn australian one year, new zealander the next and then back to being a australian again and then just for kickers he decides he is a new zealander again; who the hell changes nationality like that? alot of players change clubs like that. seen joe rokocoko advertisements for 'his fiji' on television? sounds like someone who is proud of his country. i would say nick evans is a new zealander, would you say so? if so then why can't play for his country?
Also one oftern hears about the all blacks interact with various football clubs such as ac milan last year for sponsorship purposes or steve hansen recently visiting real madrid hq to see how they ran things. i wonder why they went to clubs instead of visiting national sides such as the spanish national team?
i also like steve tew talking about the 'all black brand' god defend new zealand huh?
does one go to a new zealand game with a new zealand flag and support new zealand or
does one go to a all blacks game with a all blacks flag and support all blacks (not that anyone actually goes to these games rather most just sit at home like schmuck and watch the game on tv)

and where is this country 'all blacks'? or 'qantas wallabies' or 'sasol springboks' or 'ireland' or 'british and irish lions' for that matter

also i'll ask you this question: what makes you think the nzrfu can run the domestic competitions in this country?

What i said was professional rugby in NZ would die if you open the floodgates and select from overseas. There will no quality players left nobody is going to pay for the TV rights or tickets to watch a competiton of club level players. For example Mils Muliana has just knocked back and $850 million a year offer from Toulon, to resign with the NZRU so he can play in the next world cup. Without that there would be nothing to keep quality players like him here.

However to address what you said about the ABs not existing for the vast majority of NZ supporters the All Balcks are the most important thing. Put it down to national insecurity but the reason rugby became so popular and continues to have such a strong following is because it's the one thing we do that we can dominate the rest of the world in. We feel like it's our chance to get noticed. Like it or not that's the reality. So Rugby in this country would die without them.


All my quota system would mean is that teams would have to be more selective about which foregin players they choose. Players sitting on the bench will not learn as much as they would were they playing and testing their skills against others at the top level.

A contract with a club is nothing like a contract with the NZRU. One is a contract with a private organisation the other with a national sporting body. That's not the same thing. Our provinces are not clubs they are not private organisations they represent an area. As mentioned abpve to most NZrs a strong All Black team is the most important thing. Any domestic competition we have does need to facilitate this. That's why the NZRU should run it. The reason we can't slect overseas players at the moment is as i've mentioned if you make that rule the floodgates open and we have no more professional rugby here any more.



You can't compare it with European soccer it's a totally different situation in that to most soccer fans their club is more important than their national team. As mentioned above test matches are far more important to NZ fans than provincial matches.For this reason what works for European football is not going to work in NZ rugby nessesarily, fans over there want their club to win so they don't care where the players playing for them come from, we do here and as i've said a lot of our national pride and feeling (sad as it is) is wrapped up in how the All Blacks preform. The all blacks went and visited clubs in Europe because the spanish national team only assembles a couple of times a year for friendlies and qualifiers. They are not going to assemble just for a training run with the All Blacks.

I'm not quite sure with what you are getting at with Rockocoko are you saying you don't consider him an NZr and therefore him playing for NZ is wrong and again therefore the AB's are no a ligitimate national team? This sounds like "petty bias" to me Joe Rokocoko is proud of his Fijian heritage and why not . He is also a proud New Zealand rep who has lived in this country most of his life and represented NZ all through age group level. Are you saying that people are only valid national reps are people who are born in that particular country and have no other ethnic/national ties.

Also FYI All Blacks, Springboks, Wallabies and Lions are nicknames the official names of those teams are New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and the British and Irish Lions.

What i said was professional rugby in NZ would die if you open the floodgates and select from overseas. There will no quality players left nobody is going to pay for the TV rights or tickets to watch a competiton of club level players.
nobody watches the air nz cup games anyway (think back to the harbour counties game last year, with 800 in attendance which is pretty awful compared to club rugby itself).

A contract with a club is nothing like a contract with the NZRU. One is a contract with a private organisation the other with a national sporting body. That's not the same thing.
how so?

As mentioned abpve to most NZrs a strong All Black team is the most important thing.
if thats the case then why aren't the all blacks selecting their best players?
in a months time steve brett and steven donald will be preparing for a friendly against france when luke mcalister and nick evans will be sitting on their asses twiddling their thumbs

You can't compare it with European soccer...
It's the same reason that the Serie A introduced a quota in the 1980s.
doesn't take long to contradict yourself

Also FYI All Blacks, Springboks, Wallabies and Lions are nicknames the official names of those teams are New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and the British and Irish Lions.
do you actually think thats a good thing though?

i appreciate most of what your saying though. your notion of rugby dieing in this country without the all blacks is misfounded; the justification of not picking all blacks from overseas is that as you said they wouldn't play in our domestic competitions but hang on, look at mulianas contract it gives him the first month of the super 14 off, add the fact that he will never play in the air nz cup and whats the point of even bothering this rule since they don't play in our domestic competitions anyway? and its always going to be tough to get these players to pack off and move to the other side of the world no matter how much money you throw at them (even when they do go they get homesick pretty quickly e.g. chris jack luke mcalister victor matfield and others).
i do actually wonder why so many nz'ers think that all blacks are 'their team' as a supporter one doesn't get to go see them play every two weeks (thats what i would call being a supporter rather than watching on tv) in fact they barely play in new zealand, in 2009 they have 6 games in nz in 5 different cities (thats hardly attracting true fans like you mentioned a few posts ago) and also the nzrfu is very blatantly saying that their priority is getting into the asian market which you would think would be a slap in the face for most all blacks fans.
i'm being a bit pedantic about rocokoco but still wonder why this guy plays for nz yet parades around that he is fijian; its like supporting both all blacks and the wallabies (and what kind of dickhead would do that?).

two questions about foreing play rules:
are you happy to see rikey flutey play for england?
where would argentina have come in the 2007 rwc if foreign play rules like in nz/aus existed in england and france?

Ok we seem to be talking at cross purposes here on a few issues.

Firstly when i refer to our professional domestic competition i'm actually talking about the super 14. Ok it does have other countries in it so it's not technically a "domestic comp". It is however out highest level of professional rugby below international. What you say about the NPC actually illustrates my point. Many super 14 players don't even play in it any more TV numbers and audiences have dwindled to such a level that soon that competition will be ametuer. If you allow all of our top players to be selected for the All Blacks from overseas they will all go and there will be no professional rugby here. You might be fine with that but the vast majority of NZ rugby supporters that would not be great.

It's not hard for rugby players to "pack off" to the other side of the world. Thousands of average kiwis do it every year. If you have the lure of a huge salary it makes it even easier. My point is what keeps them here playing for a little less if the lure of playing for the AB's. That's why Muliana re signed. I'm not sure i can see what you are getting at with him having a few weeks off that does not seem relevant to what we are discsussing here.

Also if you read a bit further what i said was what works in Eurpean soccer will not "nessesarily" work here. I used the serie A as example of the thinking behind the import rule to explain the reasoning for it. It was not a direct comparision between the Serie A and the Super 14/ NZ rugby as competitions.

By the way, the reason Argetinian players are all playing in Europe is because there is no professional rugby in Argentina. Their rugby union is archaic and refused until recently to even play players for test matches. The argie players have no choice but to ply their trade in Europe. Ours do because we have a professional competition which we want to protect so as not to end up in the situation Argentina is in. They also have problems getting a lot of their top players for test matches in Argentina (of which there are not many now) released from the clubs. This is th reason we don't want to pick our players from a overseas comp. You personally may not like the ABs or consider them a true national team and that's fine, however most of us do and would still like to get the regular opportuntity to go along and see our team play the best in the world. If we open the floodgates we wont get this opportunity very often.

I don't get what you mean by they barely play in NZ? They play here probably 7 or 8 times a year. For an international team that's a fair bit every year.

You seem to be comparing international teams with club teams, i don't actually understand why. Like i said i professional club is usually a private organization owned by an individual like Roman Abramanovich. The NZRU is a national sporting body is kind of like a collective organisation which adminsiters the sport as a whole like the FA in England. Do you see the difference?

Ricky Flutey playing for England is a joke and just highlights what happens when your game is over run with forgien imports. A second rate import is better than any local english talent. Exactly what we don't want to happen here.

Reagrding Rokocoko, what's the problem? He is proud of his fijian heritage and still has strong ties to that country. He's also a NZr, he's lived here almost all of life.

What's wrong with those national team nicknames? the All Blacks have been called that since 1905, the springboks about the same. These are traditional nicknames that have developed, sure they have been seized on by the marketing people as brands but i still don't get your point.

I'm always amazed at how some otherwise passionless people get so emotional about the state of Kiwi rugby. Anybody here ever listen to radio sport? I can not believe people lie awake at night in New Zealand worrying about the demise of rugby!

To be fair would it really matter in the whole scheme of things? Not trying to be nasty but NZers seem to think the All Blacks are a better side than their record actually confirms.

Maybe they were a good team in the 40s or 50s but now? Come back in 50 years you might find this country is successful in and goes nuts for AFL, baseball or maybe even football. Once upon a time even Canada played cricket to a respectable level apparently. Now no one there can explain it to you. Maybe the same will happen to rugby in NZ?

edit: I should point out- Im not calling anyone here passionless. Just farmers in Te Kuiti.

For an international team the All Blacks record is outstanding i really don't think we are overstating it. Yes we have stuffed up at World Cups but over 100 years have maintained a record of over 80%. Could you tell me another team in international sport that has a better record than that? (Don't say the Kangaroos because they only ever play two teams) teams like Ireland and scotland have not beaten us in 100 years and Wales have not beaten us for 50 and they have fielded some reasonable teams over the years.

I don't think this country will ever go nuts for AFL. As i mentioned in a earlier post part of the reason we are so passionate about the ABs is because we have been successful internationally. Our national pride is wrapped up in it. I can't see NZrs feeing the same way about regular games against a Victorian selection. you might as well say that Melbourne will be nuts about Rugby Union in 50 years.

People in NZ being passionate about our game is no different to people in Europe and South America loving their soccer, Indians loving cricket and Australians (in some states) loving AFL. It's a passion that you grow up with. For me it's in the blood i don't think that's bad thing unless you have nothing else in your life. Sports fans should be passionate that's the whole fun of following a sports team in my opinion.

BTW when did Canada play cricket to a reasonable level? I don't think they have ever been a test playing nation have they?

Points taken. And passion is a beautiful thing by the way. Kiwis dont seem to do it right. Every country stands by their teams even (sometimes especially) when they are losing. Here every once loves their team when they are winning but jump ship when the Tall-All-Black-Sticks-Caps-Munters etc get a string of bad results.

I kinda liken NZs relationship with union to Englands relationship with Football.

Both have had success back in the day. Have won world championship once and somehow seem to think every trophy should be theres now even though they are both basically crap have been overtaken by many other nations.

Apparently Canada pretty much gave up the cricket thing about 100 years ago in an orchestrated attempt to follow more US sports. Can anybody confirm? Im such wiki will have erroneous info regarding this.

And of course I dont believe ........... shit just felt and earthquake........ anyone else get that???????????????

....um where was I? yeah 50 years time Im sure Kiwis no 1 sport wont be AFL, but who the hell knows what shifts might take place in the national psyche. Basketball? Badminton? Thai Kick Boxing? Sheep Shearing? :)

And re results for dominating a sport over the years where there is more than a smidgen of competition. I think the record MUST be held by the Australian Cricket Team.

^^ Yep totally agree with you there. We do jump ship when the going gets tough. We almost hate the ABs when they lose whihc is pathetic.

I wouldn't say we are comparable with the English football team. No we have not won the world cup in a long time much like them but we do still regularly win tri nations, bledisloe cups and have completed grand slam wins over the home nations and series wins over the British Lions. The England football team have not won anything period. Also many players in the ABs line up would make a world XV, I ca't think of one English footballer (Rooney maybe??) that would make it in their sport.

I would argue other teams have not overtaken us. None of them beat us on a regular basis and none of them beat each other as often as we beat them. We choke at world cups for sure in sudden death matches no argument there but that does not mean the rest of the world has over taken them. Far from it.

I'd stack the ABs record against the Aussie cricket team. I'll wager (Although i don't have the stats with me) that the AB's win ratio is at least as good probably better. Does anyone have the stats?

Notice how the top players over the last 15 years have slowly been fazed out of the NPC/Air NZ cup and look at what’s happening with this country’s top players and the super 14, first they miss the first seven rounds in 2007 Dan Carter doesn’t play at all in 2009 now Muliaina gets to miss the first month; do you see where this all going? I imagine it probably will go down a similar path the NPC/Air NZ cup has gone.

I just don’t see how one can say I’m supporting my country when this team isn’t named after a country, or they aren’t even a country.
...Not composite franchises with stupid pseudo american sports team names like Blues, Chiefs etc
Could add All Blacks to those two you named if you like.

With foreign player rules you will see more Rikey Fluteys playing for England. If foreign player rules are players more likely to turn down a hell of a lot of money (especially compared to the amount one could earn playing rugby in say Georgia $0) or be honest about their nationality? Does Juan Hernandez say: “I’m not going to turn my back on my country therefore I won’t be a professional player” or does he say “for that price tag call me French”?
I don’t know what exactly you mean by a casual fan and the proper supporters of rugby; but I would say proper supporters go to games on a regular basis while the casual fans sit at home and watch on TV. Look at the All Blacks schedule for this year, there are 6 games in 16 weeks in New Zealand, compare that to the Air NZ Cup where there are 94 games in 15 weeks; which one is encouraging people to go to games?
Problem with Putting the emphasis on a team whose supporters rarely gets to see is that it creates a culture of watching games on TV instead of going to games and this leads to the game in truth being run by Television companies and not the NZRFU.


All Blacks have won about 75% (72% against the major 8 (Australia England France British Isles Ireland South Africa Scotland Wales), 67% if you take out the Celtic nations) of tests while the Australian cricket side has only won about 48% (it does go up to 63% if you take draws out); so one would say the All Blacks are better. But then again the All Blacks are only about the world cup and a bit behind the Australian cricket side in that regard

Notice how the top players over the last 15 years have slowly been fazed out of the NPC/Air NZ cup and look at what’s happening with this country’s top players and the super 14, first they miss the first seven rounds in 2007 Dan Carter doesn’t play at all in 2009 now Muliaina gets to miss the first month; do you see where this all going? I imagine it probably will go down a similar path the NPC/Air NZ cup has gone.

I just don’t see how one can say I’m supporting my country when this team isn’t named after a country, or they aren’t even a country.

Could add All Blacks to those two you named if you like.

With foreign player rules you will see more Rikey Fluteys playing for England. If foreign player rules are players more likely to turn down a hell of a lot of money (especially compared to the amount one could earn playing rugby in say Georgia $0) or be honest about their nationality? Does Juan Hernandez say: “I’m not going to turn my back on my country therefore I won’t be a professional player” or does he say “for that price tag call me French”?
I don’t know what exactly you mean by a casual fan and the proper supporters of rugby; but I would say proper supporters go to games on a regular basis while the casual fans sit at home and watch on TV. Look at the All Blacks schedule for this year, there are 6 games in 16 weeks in New Zealand, compare that to the Air NZ Cup where there are 94 games in 15 weeks; which one is encouraging people to go to games?
Problem with Putting the emphasis on a team whose supporters rarely gets to see is that it creates a culture of watching games on TV instead of going to games and this leads to the game in truth being run by Television companies and not the NZRFU.


All Blacks have won about 75% (72% against the major 8 (Australia England France British Isles Ireland South Africa Scotland Wales), 67% if you take out the Celtic nations) of tests while the Australian cricket side has only won about 48% (it does go up to 63% if you take draws out); so one would say the All Blacks are better. But then again the All Blacks are only about the world cup and a bit behind the Australian cricket side in that regard

Ok i don't think we are going to agree here and as i said in my last post we seem to be having two seperate competitions here. I'm not sure i understand all of your argument but i can agree that television dictates what's happening at the moment. That's a fact of all sport i'm afraid to say.

One thing that you are not acknowleging is that if Juan Hernandez has a profession competition in his own country then that would not be an issue either.

You are also dismissing the fact that overseas imports have taken over the British game to such an extent that they cannot field a genuinly english second five eigth. However personally i couldn't give a toss about the English national team. This debate was about what was best for NZ rugby and why we should restrict foreign players in the Super 14 and not select NZ players based in Europe. The Ricky Fluty situation illustrates why we shouldn't. I know you don't like/support the ABs or think they are a ligit national team but the majority of NZ rugby fans do and to them the ABs are the most important thing therfore any professional comp below that needs to facilitate a strong All Black team. Why can't you accept that?

BTW they are named after a country. They have had the nickname for 104 years. Are you saying for this reason they have never been a national team?

To answer your question about casual fans and real supporters a casual fan is someone who has a passing interest in sport who will go to any sports match for the "event" they may not know much about the game but they enjoy the atmosphere and watch the occasional match. These people will go to (and watch on TV) Rugby, League, Soccer or whatever because of the hype of the event. Real supporters are people who genuinly love the game the people who see it as their sport and will always watch a game if it's on. They know the game and players.

The NZRU (or so they think)does not have to chase the real supporter they will always watch because rugby is their game. They will chase the casual fan because that's where the extra dollars are, that's where growth is. My beef is they are going about this wrong. I believe any profession rugby competition we have can still attract new fans while being relevant to real supporters. (These terms are just a means of differenciating between the two types of rugby watchers).

All Blacks have won about 75% (72% against the major 8 (Australia England France British Isles Ireland South Africa Scotland Wales), 67% if you take out the Celtic nations) of tests while the Australian cricket side has only won about 48% (it does go up to 63% if you take draws out); so one would say the All Blacks are better. But then again the All Blacks are only about the world cup and a bit behind the Australian cricket side in that regard


They may choke at World Cups but that is an outstanding record anyone would have to admit that. The fact that that has been maintained for 104 years makes it even more remarkable. 75% home and away is very good. According to this link below their win ration under Henry as coach has been 88% which in answer to what Milan was saying about them being better in the past proves they are even better at the moment especially considering they play a lot more games. Also regardign the world cup nobody can say our record is poor but we seem to cop more stick than is fair really. After all Brazil did not win the football world cup for 24 years (1970 - 1994) nobody bagged them as being over rated. Just a thought.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10517656

this isn't going anywhere.
its easy to say hernandez wouldn't be playing in france if argentina had a professional competition but is argentina going to have such a competition in the next 20 years? (maybe but what about the pacific islands, or some of these eastern european countries who have a large amount of players in france) and if argentina did have such a competition would it be able to sustain the kind of salary hernandez is getting in france?

australia has begun introducing some marquee player crap and look at what the rules are:
"Provinces will be allowed to sign one marquee foreigner that will never be available to play for the Wallabies and a developing player that has yet to represent his country at Test, Sevens or A-team level.

The developing player will be allowed to play for the Wallabies after three years of consecutive residency as per IRB regulations."
thats just going to see australia steal going to steal alot of new zealanders to play for australia

i'm just interested how you earlier said you could never support a team one a psuedo american sports names, yet there is nothing wrong with supporting the all blacks; remember alot of these american teams have been around a pretty long time and i do struggle to remember the last time when anyone referred the all blacks to being new zealand, or even from new zealand.

henrys winning record is 88% (very very impressive) but that didn't stop most of the country wanting him fired 18 months ago.

You are right we are quite obviously not going to agree on this better to leave it. This debate seems to being going off on tangents, for example the Hernandez issue has nothing to do with the NZ situation we were discussing and the reasons for it being run by the NZRU etc. Now you are talking about Australia's player quota systems and how that will cause NZ players to leave? I do find it hard to follow the thread of your argument.

Anyway to answer your question the names Chiefs, Blues and Crusaders are names made up by marketing people (probably after being tested on focus groups) they have no real meaning or history they are only a means on identifying a regional franchise which is an amalgamation of provinces only one of which is ther team i have always followed and feel an affiliation with.

The All Blacks is a nickname commonly used by supporters and opponents for the past 100 or so years despite being most commonly referred to by this name they are the representitive rugby union team of New Zealand. Ever since the 1905 tour of the UK the moniker "All Blacks" has applied. I support the All blacks because they are an always have been the representitive team of the country of my nationality. I know you don't feel it is a legit national team or see it as being any different from a franchise or club. That's fine but i can't see us ever agreeing on this.

You appear to see no difference between a national representitive side and either privatley owned club or a regional franchise playing in a domestic (for want of a better term) league . I do so lets stop banging our heads against the proverbial brick wall and leave this alone we. We could argue this for years.:)

O'Neill calls SA Rugby's "bluff"
Yahoo!Xtra Sport / Neil Reid - May 11, 2009, 2:00 pm

Getty Images ©

The fuse has been lit before this week's crucial Sanzar showdown, with Australian Rugby Union boss John O'Neill describing SA Rugby's approach to Super Rugby expansion as a "bluff".

Sanzar top-brass will make a late bid to agree on a consensus when they are gathered in Dublin this week for the International Rugby Board's council meeting.

The IRB council will vote on rule changes, to be introduced globally from August 1.

Officials from the New Zealand, South African and Australian rugby unions are also using the timely meeting to try and make a last-ditch effort to agree on the future shape of the current Rebel Sport Super 14.

Sanzar has until June 30 to present its template for the future of the Super Rugby arena to its broadcasters.

However, at present the NZRU, ARU and SA Rugby are yet to agree on a shared vision.

It revolves around SA Rugby's insistence of an earlier start to the season, combined with a break during the June test window.

SA Rugby also wants hosting rights of the expansion side, despite the fact it would logically be based in Australia to enable the mooted three five-franchise conference system to take place.

South African officials have stated they won't be bullied into changes that don't suit them, saying they would look to enter their teams into European competitions.

In turn the NZRU and ARU have worked on a South African-free model to be introduced for 2011.

But O'Neill has called SA Rugby's bluff, saying he doubts the body has a future in Europe if they are cut from Super Rugby.

"That's been a long-held bluff, in my view. From all the enquiries we've made, we believe there isn't an exit for them in the north," O'Neill told Sydney radio station 2KY.

"What has happened is Australia and New Zealand, out of pure frustration, have worked on a trans-Tasman competition which does work, with five or six teams from Australia and five or six from New Zealand.

"It's a Super 10 or Super 12, played over two rounds, and bringing in Japan in a couple of years time. It's a pretty elegant solution.

"The roles have changed in that we have a plan B and I'm not sure South Africa do."

SA Rugby is insistent of an late-January/early-February kick-off, saying it would not allow an expanded Super Rugby arena to clash with its domestic Currie Cup competition.

It has also called for a month-long break in Super Rugby play to allow for a break during the June test window.

However, both the ARU and NZRU have proposed that the Super 15 be played through that period.

The tests would be played mid-week.

"On a couple of occasions we thought we'd had an agreement but the South Africans have changed their minds,' O'Neill said.

"They're very unpredictable.

"We don't want South Africa to drop out of Super rugby, we want them to stay in, but the conditions they're attaching to their participation are, in our view, unreasonable."

O'Neill added of the laws vote: "We're basically going to get up on 10 out of 13 (ELVs) but we've lost out on the sanctions, the short arm (free kick) versus the long arm (penalty).

"Those votes will go along party lines. England, Ireland and Wales never even trialled those ELVs so the likelihood of them voting for them was never going to happen.

"It's time to move on, just settle on one set of laws."

Some good discussions above.

My 2 cents worth.

1. You cannot pick ABs from overseas. Its as simple as that.

The "sabbaticals" like Carter had are the exception, not the rule. European Clubs are privately owned and they will, in the main, want to sign that player EXCLUSIVELY, to get a return on their investment.

Currently, those European clubs have agreed, reluctantly, to release players in 2 brief windows to accommodate Northern Tours by SH teams, and the 6N. There is already problems with England and Wales trying to get their players back for a week prior to test matches, let alone games outside those windows. You think they will let ABs fly 24hrs away, a week before a SH test, for tests not taking place in the accepted "windows"? Won't happen. Those owners accommodate the RFU etc because thats the shop window for their game and their investment. They couldn't care less about the NZRU.

2. Secondly, opening the rules to foreign players is fine, per se. But who is going to come? the NZRU pays a pittance compared to European and Japanese clubs, and even the ARU.

Just who would bother coming down to NZ for 6mths given that they would have to be here January to have pre-season training for a March start. When's the 6N? February to mid-March...right smack at the beginning of the S14. So the only players likely to come are those who are already past their use-by dates for their countries. See Gregor Townsend playing for the Sharks. Massive drawcard for fans.

Look at the ARU "marquee player" rule. Who did they get? Daniel Braid. What a coup.

Some good discussions above.

My 2 cents worth.

1. You cannot pick ABs from overseas. Its as simple as that.

The "sabbaticals" like Carter had are the exception, not the rule. European Clubs are privately owned and they will, in the main, want to sign that player EXCLUSIVELY, to get a return on their investment.

Currently, those European clubs have agreed, reluctantly, to release players in 2 brief windows to accommodate Northern Tours by SH teams, and the 6N. There is already problems with England and Wales trying to get their players back for a week prior to test matches, let alone games outside those windows. You think they will let ABs fly 24hrs away, a week before a SH test, for tests not taking place in the accepted "windows"? Won't happen. Those owners accommodate the RFU etc because thats the shop window for their game and their investment. They couldn't care less about the NZRU.

2. Secondly, opening the rules to foreign players is fine, per se. But who is going to come? the NZRU pays a pittance compared to European and Japanese clubs, and even the ARU.

Just who would bother coming down to NZ for 6mths given that they would have to be here January to have pre-season training for a March start. When's the 6N? February to mid-March...right smack at the beginning of the S14. So the only players likely to come are those who are already past their use-by dates for their countries. See Gregor Townsend playing for the Sharks. Massive drawcard for fans.

Look at the ARU "marquee player" rule. Who did they get? Daniel Braid. What a coup.

Yep totally agree on all of those points.

I wouldn't mind a few foregin players on the Super 14 but you will not get many coming the pay cut is too big. You may get the odd British player wanting to test their skills in the Southern Hemisphere but not many and certainly not the top tier of European players.

With regards to NPC crowds, the biggest problem I see is TV coverage. Unfortunately, that's what pays the bills....

Every game is live - if your team's game wasn't being shown on TV, would more people go along? Would be interesting to see....

Secondly, we have too many night games. Why would you want to leave the comfort of your living room in winter (I am talking strictly NPC here) to go out into the cold and (potentially) rain at night to sit in a stadium and watch your team, when they are live on TV in your living room?

As a comparison, how many games in the English Premier Football league are held at night? Not many. Some games are as early as lunchtime (12:45pm) while generally the latest games are 5:30pm, usually a host of them at 4pm. And thats in the UK summer!

The Thursday night game should be scrapped for a start, and replaced with an extra sunday day game. There would be an improvement in crowds right there. Probably better weather (warmer anyway), no clash with local sport (as Saturdays do) and mid-week matches are a lottery in other outdoor codes (save for football).

Also, there are always two 7:30pm games held on a Friday. Are both of these games televised live? Because if they are, thats a mistake. Only one should be. But you know the broadcasters won't agree to that....

i wouldn't expect many players to come down here but it would leave the door open for such things to happen, particulary for players from argentina and more from the pacific islands.
players going to europe can get such things as being able to be released for internationals written in their contracts, the amount of money they would be offered would shoot down dramatically if they were to leave and play for the all blacks (they would miss the half of their season); in the shirt run as long as these competitions offer a lower standard of play (although that is changing) than in new zealand then players will be reluctant to go if they still want to play at an international level; what about players going to australia and south africa? would get paid more, the nz public would still get to see them on a regular basis and they'd still be close enough to nz.

looking at the attendances of the air nz cup the attendances on a thursday were no worse than the ones on sunday afternoons. asking the games not to be shown live is asking for a huge pay cut and whats wrong with being able to watch every game? there are some people who think that supporting rugby is more than watching 1 game a week on tv. i think what affected the air nz cup the most was having all blacks games on the same day. i don't see whats wrong with thursday night rugby, is there much else on that night? and besides did anyone badmouth tuesday and wednesday night rugby during the british isles tour in 2005?

i wouldn't expect many players to come down here but it would leave the door open for such things to happen, particulary for players from argentina and more from the pacific islands.
players going to europe can get such things as being able to be released for internationals written in their contracts, the amount of money they would be offered would shoot down dramatically if they were to leave and play for the all blacks (they would miss the half of their season); in the shirt run as long as these competitions offer a lower standard of play (although that is changing) than in new zealand then players will be reluctant to go if they still want to play at an international level; what about players going to australia and south africa? would get paid more, the nz public would still get to see them on a regular basis and they'd still be close enough to nz.

I'm not sure i understand all of what you have written there.

One point though the Argies wont come here because they can earn more in France. The Pacific Island players are almost all new zealanders anyway. It's not like there are players playing in the Apia club competition who suddenly get spotted and sign a contract to play Super 14. Most players of polynesian and Fijian descent in the Super 14 are either NZ born or lived most of their life here since childhood.

Also there are already special allowances for players who are out of the All Black frame who opt to play for one of the island teams as far as super 14 goes. Isa Nacewa is an example he was ineligable for the All Blacks because he had played for Fiji.

looking at the attendances of the air nz cup the attendances on a thursday were no worse than the ones on sunday afternoons.

Just looking at the 2008 figures, there are, on average, just over 1000 people more at a Sunday game than at a Thursday night game - almost 20% more. Furthermore, the average Sunday attendance is only about 300 people less than the average Saturday attendance - now that's interesting considering "big" matches - Top 5 clashes, ranfurly shield challenges - are almost always on a Saturday.

Those Thursday night numbers aren't pitiful though - well, not as bad as I thought. Its a new concept for NZ sport and perhaps should be persevered with, as it could become a traditional night out. Looks like there is scope though to move a Sat game to Sunday - reduce a clash with AB games and local sport

asking the games not to be shown live is asking for a huge pay cut and whats wrong with being able to watch every game? there are some people who think that supporting rugby is more than watching 1 game a week on tv..

Yes, it would mean a pay cut, but our game can be played in mid-winter, in pretty trying conditions. And in that environment, when you offer people the choice of a warm night in or a cold wet night out, don't be suprised at the result - again, see the EPL fixtures.

Perhaps the answer is in regional "blocking" - if it could be done. For example, if Wellington play at the Cake Tin, that game is not shown live but delayed until the next day. Everyone else in the country would still get the game live. Its the trade-off; crowds v TV cash. As I say, they are in direct competition, and its not working.

did anyone badmouth tuesday and wednesday night rugby during the british isles tour in 2005?

International team, coming to your town mid-week, once every 12yrs. Not really a comparison, is it....

Rugby: New law ruling could clean up breakdowns - O'Brien
9:34AM Thursday May 14, 2009

The International Rugby Board (IRB) is hoping a new law ruling could help clean up the breakdown , referees manager Paddy O'Brien said today.

O'Brien said the ruling, approved by the IRB council "may make a difference to the dynamics of the tackle".

Under the ruling, if the tackler or the first person arriving at the breakdown had their hands on the ball, they were now entitled to keep their hands on the ball, even though a ruck had formed.

O'Brien said the ruling would begin to be used in the upcoming international season.

"Until we see it in operation, which we will see quite a lot of during the July test matches, we won't know exactly how it is going to work out.

"But I'm confident it will certainly assist refereeing and the players," he told Radio Sport.

The IRB also formally ratified a recommendation by their rugby committee to approve 10 of the 13 global experimental law variations (ELVs) into the rules of the game.

The recommendations of the IRB committee were unanimously approved and the laws would be implemented globally from May 23.

Most of the 10 ELVs which will become laws of the game relate to the line-out and scrum.

In addition, three Union-specific ELVs were also approved for integration into law.

These include the ability for a Union to implement a maximum 15-minute halftime in matches under its jurisdiction.

O'Brien said with today's decisions, there would be no further changes between now and 2011 World Cup hosted by New Zealand.

THE 10 ELVS APPROVED BY THE IRB

Law 6 - Assistant referees able to assist referees in any way the referee requires

Law 19 - If a team puts the ball back in their own 22 and the ball is subsequently kicked directly into touch there is no gain in ground

Law 19 - A quick throw may be thrown in straight or towards the throwing team's goal line

Law 19 - The receiver at the lineout must be two metres back away from the lineout

Law 19 - The player who is in opposition to the player throwing in the ball must stand in the area between the five metre line and touch line and must be two metres from the line of touch and at least two metres from the lineout

Law 19 - Lineout players may pre-grip a jumper before the ball is thrown in

Law 19 - The lifting of lineout jumpers is permitted

Law 20 - Introduction of an offside line five metres behind the hindmost feet of the scrum

Law 20 - Scrum half offside line at the scrum

Law 20 - The corner posts are no longer considered to be touch in goal except when the ball is grounded against the post

- NZPA

Hmm....

That first tackler/use of hands in ruck rule is interesting. So simple in fact I'm not sure why it hasn't been mentioned before.

Little changes for the defensive side (that side 2nd to the breakdown). Would focus them on driving the tackler off the ball instead of poking around in with their hands after a ruck has already formed.....

Gives a massive advantage to the team with the better no.7 (or whoever is their best fetcher). Could also result in twice the number of turnovers too. Quite often the tackler or first man on his feet gets his hands on the ball, but then an opposition player arrives at the same time and he has to let go when a ruck is called. Not now...

Interesting...

Super 15 to kick-off in 2011
Yahoo!Xtra Sport / Neil Reid - May 15, 2009, 7:30 am

Getty Images ©

Sanzar has agreed on introducing a Super 15 in time for the 2011 rugby season, but will hold off on revealing their detailed plan for the future until next week.

Officials from the New Zealand, Australian and South African rugby unions finally came to a Super Rugby consensus at a crisis meeting in Dublin overnight.

The rugby administrators were in Dublin for the earlier IRB council meeting which voted in a global set of laws.

South Africa's future in the Super Rugby arena was the subject of much uncertainty prior to the latest meeting.

Since early March relations around the Sanzar board table had soured due to SA Rugby's stance on the proposed Super Rugby expansion.

New Zealand Rugby Union chief executive Steve Tew said he was relieved that a consensus had been found, although details will not be formally released until next week.

Speaking from Dublin, when asked by Yahoo!Xtra if a Super 15 would be in creation by 2011, Tew said: "We will announce the actual details next week.

"We have previously outlined the Super 15 option. So I think you can plan reasonably confidently that that will be part of the detail.

"But I would rather not go much further than that stage at this time."

Last July Sanzar agreed to work towards introducing a Super 15 which would see the creation of three five-franchise conferences in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

Each side would play its respective conference members on a home and away basis, before also playing the other 10 sides in the Super 15 once.

A six-team play-off series would then take place, featuring the top two teams from each conference.

However, SA Rugby had moved to question the wisdom of that set-up earlier this year, demanding hosting rights for a sixth franchise and proposing a January season kick-off.

Earlier on Friday morning Sanzar chief executive Andy Marinos confirmed that a future structure had been agreed upon. However, he stressed it would be reported back to the respective unions before being made public.

"Whilst there was a robust and constructive discussion of the issues, it was clear that the partners were all united in wanting to continue playing Super Rugby and Tri Nations," Marinos said.

"We have agreed on a way forward and wish to inform our stakeholders before making any further comment."

Tew said what had been agreed upon in Dublin worked for all three parties.

"We have had a very productive meeting," Tew said.

"All three parties came to Dublin to try and find a solution. And we are delighted we have been able to do that.

"We now have an agreement. Next week we will be able to announce the details of that agreement.

"All three parties are keen to get home and give our shareholders a little bit of an insight into what has been agreed before we went public. It is particularly important for the South Africans.

"So we have agreed to that. At some stage next week, once we have completed that process, we will give you the detail.

"We have previously gone through a lot of the options publicly anyway, so you are not going to be particularly surprised.

"The headline is, I guess, we do have an agreement; we will now package up our agreed format and that will be put in front of the broadcasters as per the time-table we have previously out-lined."

The current SANZAR agreement on Super 14 expires at the end of 2010.

The partners are due to present a new proposed structure to broadcasters at the end of June.

goody
in the air nz cup regionalised blackouts is certainly worth a try needs to be more rugby on a sunday would rather move the 2nd friday game than the thursday game there. i'm curious how having rugby on a suday night is never mentioned, it always seems to do alright during the rugby world cup, seria a has some of its bigger games there and worked for the nrl final for a few years yet nights like thursday and monday get mentioned before it (i'm aware of how depressing those games at 430 on a sunday were in 2006).
i doubt with foreign player rules gone anything would drastically change, but i just don't see what good they do.

I'm pretty sure they still use the regional blocking for cricket in Australia. For instance, it used to be that if a ODI was being played in Melbourne, that game was not shown live in that location. You may get the second innings live if it was sold out, but that was about it. That, though, was not cable TV - it was free to air (Channel 9).

I initially thought of moving one of the Friday night games to Sunday, but just looking at it quickly the other day, the Friday figures look generally strong. I'd guess that the Saturday averages are dragged down by one of the various games played (sometimes there are 3) - perhaps, as you say, clashing with AB games? Or a low profile game clashing with a higher profile one that could be watched on TV?

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that the Sunday night NRL finals of a few years back were on a long weekend in NSW - hence no problem in being out late that Sunday night.

Generally, I think people are winding back on a Sunday night, getting ready for the dreaded working week, so I'm not sure there would be the appetite for late Sunday games. Again, RWC examples probably aren't the best comparison given they are unique.

You're quite right about the foreign born player rule (to play for NZ S14 teams) - it would make little difference. The argument is it deprives a NZ player of a place, but there's alot who are probably lucky to be there in the first place. I'd have no issue with introducing a 2 foreign player limit.

The problem is though, I think all S14 contracts are central ones - that is, they are paid by the NZRU. Would we be happy with NZ$ going to pay foreign players? Or would we rather see that go to the development of up and coming NZ players.....

I like the idea of bringing back the Juniour All Blacks as I believe this contributes significantly to player depth. Last year they were scrapped in favour of New Zealand Maori. Had the Juniour All Blacks not been so strong the previous year, then I doubt the All Blacks would have had the same depth to sustain last year. On a positive note, getting players like Luke Macalaster and Chris Jack are a major boost. Others are likely to follow. Australia poaching is posing a small threat. One only has to look at the makeup of the Australian Super 14 teams. New Zealand needs to do something soon to attract top players back. From last count there were at least 250 professional rugby players plying their trade throughout Europe and Japan.:nuts:

Yeah i agree with that. The junior AB's were a good idea.

http://www.allblacks.com/news/10062/Super-Rugby-expansion-plans-announced
better than what we have now but its still rubbish, playing every team would help

Yeah more local derbies is good. Still does not really float my boat though.

What gets me with the Super 15 plans is a seven month domestic/franchise season going into the Tri-nations -- taking into account end of season tours and that's pretty much rugby the whole year round- way too long IMO. Also this proposal doesn't look good for the Air NZ Cup; if the focus is on the five NZ franchises playing largely each other in a conference system it plays on developing greater franchise rivalries cf regional rivalries. I can see the whole thing getting stale pretty quickly.

Big winner is Australia.

If their 5th conference team is based there, local derbies go from 6 to 20, total matches go from 26 to 40. They would have the season-long competition they require to match the NRL and ARL.

It is a long season, and over-exposure is a risk. But there is a 3wk break in between, for the June test window. Given that S15 games before the June tests are predominantly (all?) local derbies, while after June it will be dominated by inter-conference (international) games, it will give the impression of two seperate comps, hopefully negating any potential staleness.

Throw in the finals changes - an extra week, more sudden death games, greater potential for drama (upsets) - it should at least be better than what we have.

NPC will no doubt run at the same time as the 3N (Aug-Sept-Oct). Don't expect big crowds in the main centres for these games when they have already had up to 8 home games for S15, plus 1 or 2 test matches.

I say "up to" 8 home games because this increase in home games should allow teams like the Hurricanes to play more in the other grounds of Napier, Palmerston North and New Plymouth - probably used for the inter-conference games against Aus/SA teams which don't draw as bigger crowds..

I really hope they don't split the cempetition in a "derby" half and an interconference half. For starters it will create a massive number of byes (three teams each week) and will kill any tension towards the end of round robin play.

I really hope they don't split the cempetition in a "derby" half and an interconference half. For starters it will create a massive number of byes (three teams each week) and will kill any tension towards the end of round robin play.

That's exactly what they are doing.

They will get 2 byes - one in the derby round, one in the interconference round (plus 3wks for all during the June tests)

There will still be 6 games each weekend. For S14, we have, roughly, 7 games for the first 4 and last 3 weeks of the round robin. Byes take place in the middle 7 rounds (2 teams each week) meaning there are only 6 games a week during this period.

I'm not sure how it will kill tension - you are still likely to see the scenario where 10 teams are still in the running for play-off spots come the last weekend, whether you have a bye in that round or not.

That's exactly what they are doing.

They will get 2 byes - one in the derby round, one in the interconference round (plus 3wks for all during the June tests)

There will still be 6 games each weekend. For S14, we have, roughly, 7 games for the first 4 and last 3 weeks of the round robin. Byes take place in the middle 7 rounds (2 teams each week) meaning there are only 6 games a week during this period.

I'm not sure how it will kill tension - you are still likely to see the scenario where 10 teams are still in the running for play-off spots come the last weekend, whether you have a bye in that round or not.

Won't there be three byes total for each team though? It will take five weeks for each team in a conference to play every other team, with one bye per team over that period, meaning there will be two byes per team due to intraconference play assuming there will be no interconference games over the same period.

As for killing tension, that may have been a little OTT but it is often been the end of season "local" matches which generate the most interest (see the Hurricanes v Chiefs match).

Won't there be three byes total for each team though? It will take five weeks for each team in a conference to play every other team, with one bye per team over that period, meaning there will be two byes per team due to intraconference play assuming there will be no interconference games over the same period

Still looks to me like 2 byes (outside of the 3wk break for June tests); 1 during the local derby round, 1 during the interconference games.

Both rounds have 8 games for each team.

I say "up to" 8 home games because this increase in home games should allow teams like the Hurricanes to play more in the other grounds of Napier, Palmerston North and New Plymouth - probably used for the inter-conference games against Aus/SA teams which don't draw as bigger crowds..

Yeah but...would they bother, even with those extra games?

Those Hurricanes provincial centres (and Whangerei in the Blues catchment, I suppose and Nelson in the Crusaders) don't seem to get a lot of love as it is but hopefully that changes eh

Yeah but...would they bother, even with those extra games?

Those Hurricanes provincial centres (and Whangerei in the Blues catchment, I suppose and Nelson in the Crusaders) don't seem to get a lot of love as it is but hopefully that changes eh

This was discussed a bit a while back (perhaps even on this thread).

The Canes, generally, get alot of love in those 3 centres. For those less attractive games, they probably get close to the same numbers as you would in Wellington.

It isn't so rosy in the other centres by all accounts but its a chicken and egg thing I think; if you have never really embraced the wider region for what is a regional team, what do you expect?

who thinks this setup will actually last more than 5 years?

It has been widely anticipated that it would eventually be a Super 18 or something like that. I think it would be great if one of the teams became a team where a combination of nationalities played and there was no problems as to their eligibility for the All Blacks. It would also be great to see private money coming into the game so we can buy back some of our top players. There is a definite risk of player burnout.:):)

Can't see this doing anything to bring back interest into the competition. People are already complaining there is too much rugby on and it's starts to early now we have this competition starting in february running to August followed by the Air NZ cup which will run for two months. That's a pretty long season.

Could be worse they could have introduced a fake "pacific" side based in Oz or brought in a Japanese side like they threatened to. Still wish we could have provinces in oh well suppose i will just have to let that one go.

Can't see this doing anything to bring back interest into the competition. People are already complaining there is too much rugby on and it's starts to early now we have this competition starting in february running to August followed by the Air NZ cup which will run for two months. That's a pretty long season.

Yeah, it is long. The NZRU is convinced that the issue is not the amount of rugby, its the quality. Outside of the improvements to the finals, I'm not sure this makes much difference. You could argue it makes it worse, depending on the competitiveness of the 5th side in the Australian conference.

I would have liked to have seen each three countries play their domestic competitions in the first window, prior to the June tests. It would allow one full round of NPC for example. Then, the top 5 teams from the NPC qualify for the main competition (a Champions League-type arrangement), along with the top 5 from the Currie Cup and the Top 4 from an Australian national championship which (like a couple of years ago) would include teams from Melbourne, Gold Coast, perhaps Western Sydney.

In the end, you know the Oz qualifiers will be their big 4, but there would be some scope for upsets in NZ and SA, given that the NPC squads of the big 5 are generally weaker than their S14 sides. For arguments sake, if you took the top 5 teams after last years NPC round robin as qualifiers, NZ's representatives would be Wellington, Canterbury, Hawkes Bay, BoP and Southland. Talk about breathing life back into the NPC!

Those teams who don't qualify from their respective country would then play a second round of domestic games (if you played a team at home previously, you play away this time) for a 2nd tier title. The key to maintaining interest in this competition is for SANZAR to provide a big $$$$$ prize to the winning union in each domestic comp.

The "qualifying" rounds in each country would be played before the June tests and after the break, the split would occur and the top and bottom tier comps played before the 3N.

Could be worse they could have introduced a fake "pacific" side based in Oz

Might happen yet........

^^ Yeah totally agree the champions league style tournament appeals to me as well. I also think somthing like you mentioned would get buy in from the provinces, now that there are no tours and Super 14 franchises don't play very often in the home grounds of the smaller franchise partners there is a dearth of top level rugby in the smaller centres.

I think it would work but this is what they have gone for so i guess we'll see how it goes.

And yeah they seem hell bent of involving Japan somehow due to the large population up there. I'd say with that it's not a question of if but when.

This was discussed a bit a while back (perhaps even on this thread).

The Canes, generally, get alot of love in those 3 centres. For those less attractive games, they probably get close to the same numbers as you would in Wellington.

It isn't so rosy in the other centres by all accounts but its a chicken and egg thing I think; if you have never really embraced the wider region for what is a regional team, what do you expect?

I'd heard totally the opposite; and in fact Palmerston North was so fed up with being given the cold shoulder that the Highlanders 'adopted' the city for a home game awhile back.

It has been widely anticipated that it would eventually be a Super 18 or something like that. I think it would be great if one of the teams became a team where a combination of nationalities played and there was no problems as to their eligibility for the All Blacks. It would also be great to see private money coming into the game so we can buy back some of our top players. There is a definite risk of player burnout.:):)

The thing is, no one wants to see that stuff. They want local teams that they can get behind.