Austadiums Forum

I don't think anywhere else in the country will be seriously looked at. Newcastle and Western Sydney have been brought up.

But I think everyone agrees Melbourne is the next location in line...

I really doubt there's anywhere viable for the 5th Australian franchise asides from Melbourne. Western Sydney and Newcastle are laughable from a demographical point of view, GC is laughable from a general QR point of view and Adelaide's not even on the radar. Melbourne or nothing.

EDIT: If you rejigged the Waratahs I guess an option would be North and South Sydney. Makes much more sense than East and West.

A North Sydney RU side makes a lot of sense .

Nines wrote:A North Sydney RU side makes a lot of sense .

You just don't want the MRS to be the best ground in Australia and the best deal for its tenants.

gyfox wrote:

Nines wrote:A North Sydney RU side makes a lot of sense .

You just don't want the MRS to be the best ground in Australia and the best deal for its tenants.

I can tell you the MRS always gets the best .

Nines wrote:

gyfox wrote:

Nines wrote:A North Sydney RU side makes a lot of sense .

You just don't want the MRS to be the best ground in Australia and the best deal for its tenants.

I can tell you the MRS always gets the best .

Tenants?

The 5th Australian side in the Super 15 could come from any of the SANZAR countries.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 575369.htm

Nines wrote:

gyfox wrote:

Nines wrote:A North Sydney RU side makes a lot of sense .

You just don't want the MRS to be the best ground in Australia and the best deal for its tenants.

I can tell you the MRS always gets the best .

gyfox wrote:The 5th Australian side in the Super 15 could come from any of the SANZAR countries.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 575369.htm

But it really should be Australian.
Any possible unfairness with that must be handled some other way. If the reports are true it would appear as the first sensible decision-making for a very long time in southern rugby.
National conferences is a great step forward and something that over time could evolve into national championships followed by extensive play offs similar to the championships and European cup, that is such as massive success in europe, where record attendances in all the major tournaments has been followed by big increases in tv-deals and just these weeks in various finals series we are seeing 80,000+ crowds for club games three weeks in a row.

If it was up to me, I would be happy for the IRB to even fund a sixth team for each of the three countries, provided all squads include a few pacific players.


Considerable more funding could also be achieved by ditching the june tests and tougher southern bargaining to be paid for november tests instead. Having read an article about the very low financial rewards the south gets for the current "extra" november tests, I must somewhat change my opinion from earlier in the thread. Southern teams are probably being taken advantage of to some degree

Apparently Australia got only £ ½ million for a cardiff test, and NZ only a bit more for a Twickenham game. Though England would not doubt disagree, I cant really see how their direct and indirect income from such a big november test can be spun into being much less than aus $ 30 million, of which NZ then apparently get around 5%.

Its hardly fair. Why not play all NH v SH in the north. There is a big market that simply doesnt exist in the south. With early kick-offs games would still be close to prime time in the south so does it really matter, where they are played. Its a potential gold mine that could be used to expand all rugby below test level in the south and get the pacific islands players involved in regular top rugby as well.

Egan wrote:

swede wrote: but it died five minutes after it was invented because of a lack of available long term funding, didnt it? perhaps because all the money was used on sending many large squads to south africa for weeks on end to play games for 10th place in the middle of the night..

I may be wrong but I just find it hard to believe that for instance a six-team australian championship using the "super" teams (and two more) wouldnt be more profitable than the super14 setup, especially with a knock-out sanzar play-off on top.

corporate interest shouldnt force short-term planning.

It died because nobody turned up to the games and traditional Sydney clubs never endorsed the competition.

They didn't get the capital support, nor did they get the crowds. Super 14 and the international format is a lot more profitable.

Swede, you coming to the austadiums 10th year birthday in Melbourne later on this year?

thanks, but a bit far to travel.
Even if Melbourne sounds good. It would be great to see an AFL game at the MCG some day. and with little risk of being exposed to rugby leaue...

Here comes Japan.


http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news ... 08009.html

With all the bleating that the ARU has traditionally done about Northern Hemisphere countries sending sub-standard teams to their mid-year tours of Southern Hemisphere countries, I thought it was ironic that the Wallabies team that played in Melbourne last weekend was exactly that!

Any wonder the crowd was so poor?

By not playing their best available team there's a serious risk that the ARU will turn 'Test Matches' into mere friendlies. The problem being that there aren't any WCQs or ACQs that are serious to balance off against the mere friendlies.

Tri-Nations/Bledisloe Cup is really where it is at for Southern Hemisphere Rugby Union atm. That is basically some of the toughest union going around so I think it compensates.

gyfox wrote:

Nines wrote:

gyfox wrote:You just don't want the MRS to be the best ground in Australia and the best deal for its tenants.

I can tell you the MRS always gets the best .

Tenants?

Tooheys New for me thanks.