Mate the 2011 World Cup looks like it might be the first in history to come up in the red for the host country.

What's this?

Serious Rugby talk on austadiums.

Good stuff

problem, meet solution.






uuuh, how do we think the french will go this year?

The girlfriend approves of the above posts

if not the content, definitely the intent.

Expand, yes. Within reason. If Japan could provide financial guarantees and present a case for how reasonable attendances will be achieved, then fine. I just dont think they can, and poor crowds will devalue the brand rather than expand anything.
Italy may be member of the sixnations but rugby is not yet a major sport there. but its growing and a world cup would make a real difference while at the same time be profitable because of the geography, timezones and available stadiums. Is it not expansion if its in europe?

For who´s sake do you want to change the rules? Where is the evidence, that a dumbed-down version would do any good, especially as crowds are dropping in the places that adopted all the ELVs but growing elsewhere.

As for NZ being exploited by the north, thats just nonsense. November tests are increasingly played on a profit-sharing basis, which is why NZ want to come to Twickenham every year.

Sure, the june tests are crap, but nothing can be done about that, they should just be ditched.
It seems you under-estimate the fast-growing influence of the club game.
Here are two crowds from the stade de france in paris this season.
November: France v Australia, att: 70,000
last week : St. Francais v Clermont, att: 79,000

Rugby is not football just yet, but its going that way. Soon internationals outside of tournaments will be of little more interest than a football friendly and nothing to base the game around.

That maybe true in Europe Swede, but the Australian context this is not happening. Super 14 crowds are becoming less popular across the continent. Canberra, Perth, Sydney and Brisbane are all facing decreasing crowds, not just Perth as some of the ALF supporters like to brag about....

Is it a case of two different rugby worlds between Europe and the Southern Hemisphere, not just the style of Rugby?

I don't think the ELVs have led to the drop in crowds. The ELVs, at least in Australia, were a response to the declining interest in the game since the inflated hype of RUWC 2003 and they have not been able to arrest the decline that has been evident since before the ELVs were introduced.

The ARU was right to think that people in Australia want to see more time where the ball in play and more instances of the crowd being able to see the ball. That's probably why RU is a distant 4th of the four Australian football codes.

But if the sport doesnt go with it, they need to play within the rules set down by the administrators. If the IRB doesn't want to adopt them then good luck to them. As you say, the code is doing well in many parts of the world.

Are you saying Swede that supporters in SH nations shouldn't be given the pleasure of watching live the 'best' that the NH teams have to offer (ie the June tours when NH teams traditionally do SH tours) or are you saying we should just have one window with teams going both north and south?

true, things have changed, but this is a relatively recent development, and not all tests seem to be arranged this way. Like the 4th Bledisoe Cup match, they seem to be done just for the money and are possibly not in the best interest of the game longer term

but its the second year of the new rules in the south, so shouldnt they have begun to at least slow down dwindling crowds if they were any kind of solution?

But I agree, its probably not the main reason. The structure in the south has always seemed odd to me with several layers of pro-rugby all offering so many games of little or no relevance.

Why not ditch the whole super-rugby. Return to national the championships (Aus could use their super-teams and perhaps add a few)
There would be national "derbies" and everything to play for as there would be both national finals as well as a Sanzar play-off and possibly even relegation, at least in SA.

But if 03 was all hype then its hardly realistic to expect to maintain it by rule changes.

If the need for the ball to be in play more is so crucial, then the NFL or baseball should be walking disasters in the US. The ELVs have probably meant the ball is in play more, but it has generally led to more pointless play and a loss of structure, certainly in the north where I think most peoples impression is that it leads to more aimless kicking back and forth.

If Australia prefer an RL-style of rugby, then thats fine but as that game already exists there is hardly any reason to try and pull rugby in the same direction.

Probably because the corporate interest in the framework of the Super 14 and sponsors being seen in markets such as New Zealand, Australia and South Africa makes it a lot more desirable.

Plus the ARC died in the ass last year. Union is going through a rebuilding phase, was conservative other then deliveri ng the force a license to compete in the Super 14.

I am saying, what you ask for is impossible. If such games were to be played properly it would require serious extra compensation to at least the 26 top clubs in England and France alone, and for what? Financially worthless games, which I doubt that many supporters in the south are really that keen on.

The south should rather focus on developing a structure that includes Samoa, Tonga and Fiji. Three massively under-estimated islands full of talent and also serious potential as financially valuable brands in the longer term. And they can compete. Fiji knocked Wales out of the last world cup and tied with South Africa well into the second half, probably coming closer than any to knock out the eventual champions.

Relistically yes, I mean november games in the north only. Essentially its what the south want as well for financial reasons. Especially NZ seem focused on ever longer world tours, no doubt to help fund the costs of their rugby structure.

That would kill Rugby in Australia. Rugby is played mainly in NSW and QLD and the Brunbies and the Force rely fairly heavily on "borrowing" players from these states. If you brought say Victoria and South Australia in all you would do is weaken the standard of competition and have even smaller crowds.

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.