W
Woldog
Guest
Well apparently the Super 14 format will change to Super 15 in 2011 with Melbourne getting a team.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Q
QLD
Guest
Got a link to this?
W
Woldog
Guest
W
Wally
Guest
Australia will get its fifth team but the exact location and makeup of the team is yet to be decided. I'd say it will be a two horse race between the Gold Coast and Melbourne with the later getting the nod. Team squads will be trimmed from 32 to 28 to save money and allow for a better spread of talent. The new team will be regulated unlike what we saw with the Western Force and all the ridiculous under the table third party payments that went on at that time. I'd say the number of imports will be raised in the short-term, or at least the new team will get such incentives.
W
Wally
Guest
I'm not 100% sure but I hope they go with this structure:
Three pools of five teams (Pool 1 Australia, etc). Each teams plays every other team once, and every team in their own pool twice (to maximise home derbies and revenue). Then either the top two teams from each pool progress to a 6-team format finals series, or the top six on an overall ladder progress with the top two teams given a week off while 3rd and 4th play 5th and 6th in two elimination games.
Three pools of five teams (Pool 1 Australia, etc). Each teams plays every other team once, and every team in their own pool twice (to maximise home derbies and revenue). Then either the top two teams from each pool progress to a 6-team format finals series, or the top six on an overall ladder progress with the top two teams given a week off while 3rd and 4th play 5th and 6th in two elimination games.
W
Woldog
Guest
Isn't that what they're suggesting, so that NZ teams play NZ teams twice, Aus play Aus twice and SA do whatever they want cause that's what they seem to do anyway.
W
Wally
Guest
Yeah that's what I heard, but who knows it's still kind of hush hush atm.
Q
QLD
Guest
An even better option would be for SA to leave so there's no more ridiculous flying around for all players and ridiculous times for games. This fifth team will only work if Australian teams let New Zealanders play for them and have more import spots in squad. For 0/4 Aus teams and 3/5 NZ teams to make the finals shows how much depth Australia are lacking compared to the other countries. And just imagine how much stronger the NZ teams would be if they had all their top players from Europe playing.
A salary cap would be a great idea as well.
A salary cap would be a great idea as well.
Q
QLD
Guest
The Melbourne Storm have created a niche market down there in Melbourne, if they really wanted some more publicity they should nab a Greg Inglis or Billy Slater to get more fans over from league.
H
Haysie
Guest
They're already letting NZ'ers play for Australian sides, look at Ezra Taylor and Daniel Braid in our own Reds for two classic cases. I believe that for the Super 14/15/30292838 to survive we need to have the three current SANZAR nations competing. That is not to say though that we can write off including such nations as Argentina and Japan, which would both need a stiffening up before they could enter the arena.
Having said that though, we've got to remember that we want the playing quality to be as high as it is now and has been, and to alter the makeup of the series would have a drastic knock-on affect to all nations around the world and their international strengths.
Having said that though, we've got to remember that we want the playing quality to be as high as it is now and has been, and to alter the makeup of the series would have a drastic knock-on affect to all nations around the world and their international strengths.
W
Woldog
Guest
Western Force will have like 3 players next season anyway, they will need some imports.
H
Haysie
Guest
What came of the Force chasing Peter Grant? Or will we not hear anything of it until after the Lions series because he wants to be picked?
F
Fushitsusha
Guest
The Australian Super teams are state based...
The idea of the Gold Coast fielding a team is just downright stupid when the Reds are already the team for QUEENSLAND...
If the Gold Coast wants to be involved in Super rugby it should only be in a way that sees the Reds play one or two games there a season...
Victoria is really the only viable option for another Australian team...
The idea of the Gold Coast fielding a team is just downright stupid when the Reds are already the team for QUEENSLAND...
If the Gold Coast wants to be involved in Super rugby it should only be in a way that sees the Reds play one or two games there a season...
Victoria is really the only viable option for another Australian team...
W
Wally
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ May 17 2009, 08:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
While Melbourne is the logical choice, I wouldn't entirely discount the Gold Coast. The fact that they are part Queensland is irrelevant. They have a great purpose built stadium, a fast growing population, decent rugby support and big corporate dollars. They may not be ready for a team just yet, rugby has probably missed the boat with rugby league, football, basketball and now AFL all committing teams on the coast, but in 5-10 years I defiantly see them as having a successful franchise.
The Australian Super teams are state based...
The idea of the Gold Coast fielding a team is just downright stupid when the Reds are already the team for QUEENSLAND...
If the Gold Coast wants to be involved in Super rugby it should only be in a way that sees the Reds play one or two games there a season...
Victoria is really the only viable option for another Australian team...[/b]
While Melbourne is the logical choice, I wouldn't entirely discount the Gold Coast. The fact that they are part Queensland is irrelevant. They have a great purpose built stadium, a fast growing population, decent rugby support and big corporate dollars. They may not be ready for a team just yet, rugby has probably missed the boat with rugby league, football, basketball and now AFL all committing teams on the coast, but in 5-10 years I defiantly see them as having a successful franchise.
F
Fushitsusha
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wally @ May 17 2009, 01:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
While Melbourne is the logical choice, I wouldn't entirely discount the Gold Coast. The fact that they are part Queensland is irrelevant. They have a great purpose built stadium, a fast growing population, decent rugby support and big corporate dollars. They may not be ready for a team just yet, rugby has probably missed the boat with rugby league, football, basketball and now AFL all committing teams on the coast, but in 5-10 years I defiantly see them as having a successful franchise.
[/b][/quote]
Will that mean the Reds will cease to exist in their current form and be rebranded?
You obviously can't have the 'Queensland Reds' and the 'Gold Coast whatever'...
If Australia is going to continue with state based teams the Gold Coast can't have a team... it's as simple as that... however, the Reds can and should probably play some of their home games on the Gold Coast to attract those supporters...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ May 17 2009, 08:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The Australian Super teams are state based...
The idea of the Gold Coast fielding a team is just downright stupid when the Reds are already the team for QUEENSLAND...
If the Gold Coast wants to be involved in Super rugby it should only be in a way that sees the Reds play one or two games there a season...
Victoria is really the only viable option for another Australian team...[/b]
While Melbourne is the logical choice, I wouldn't entirely discount the Gold Coast. The fact that they are part Queensland is irrelevant. They have a great purpose built stadium, a fast growing population, decent rugby support and big corporate dollars. They may not be ready for a team just yet, rugby has probably missed the boat with rugby league, football, basketball and now AFL all committing teams on the coast, but in 5-10 years I defiantly see them as having a successful franchise.
[/b][/quote]
Will that mean the Reds will cease to exist in their current form and be rebranded?
You obviously can't have the 'Queensland Reds' and the 'Gold Coast whatever'...
If Australia is going to continue with state based teams the Gold Coast can't have a team... it's as simple as that... however, the Reds can and should probably play some of their home games on the Gold Coast to attract those supporters...
I
InsaneAsylum
Guest
ok this will be great for me as i'll be able to possibly see super 14 rugby in my home state. the only problem for me if melbourne goes ahead is, do i continue followng the chiefs or do i follow the team where i was born and have lived in all my life. the other question is... will we pull any sort of crowds? i think they have to make it free for kids under 16 for starters and then hope that some recruits from nz and sa can help to draw some ex pats out of the woodwork.
W
Wally
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ May 18 2009, 01:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
While Melbourne is the logical choice, I wouldn't entirely discount the Gold Coast. The fact that they are part Queensland is irrelevant. They have a great purpose built stadium, a fast growing population, decent rugby support and big corporate dollars. They may not be ready for a team just yet, rugby has probably missed the boat with rugby league, football, basketball and now AFL all committing teams on the coast, but in 5-10 years I defiantly see them as having a successful franchise.
[/b][/quote]
Will that mean the Reds will cease to exist in their current form and be rebranded?
You obviously can't have the 'Queensland Reds' and the 'Gold Coast whatever'...
If Australia is going to continue with state based teams the Gold Coast can't have a team... it's as simple as that... however, the Reds can and should probably play some of their home games on the Gold Coast to attract those supporters...
[/b][/quote]
Not really a big deal. In the A-League the Queensland Roar have recently rebranded as Brisbane Roar with the inception of North Queensland and Gold Coast based teams. Having state names is pointless anyway. Queensland should switch to Brisbane and NSW should switch to Sydney as they only ever play season games in their respective cities. Western Force can stay the same and I don't see why there is any need for ACT to switch to Canberra.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wally @ May 17 2009, 01:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ May 17 2009, 08:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The Australian Super teams are state based...
The idea of the Gold Coast fielding a team is just downright stupid when the Reds are already the team for QUEENSLAND...
If the Gold Coast wants to be involved in Super rugby it should only be in a way that sees the Reds play one or two games there a season...
Victoria is really the only viable option for another Australian team...[/b]
While Melbourne is the logical choice, I wouldn't entirely discount the Gold Coast. The fact that they are part Queensland is irrelevant. They have a great purpose built stadium, a fast growing population, decent rugby support and big corporate dollars. They may not be ready for a team just yet, rugby has probably missed the boat with rugby league, football, basketball and now AFL all committing teams on the coast, but in 5-10 years I defiantly see them as having a successful franchise.
[/b][/quote]
Will that mean the Reds will cease to exist in their current form and be rebranded?
You obviously can't have the 'Queensland Reds' and the 'Gold Coast whatever'...
If Australia is going to continue with state based teams the Gold Coast can't have a team... it's as simple as that... however, the Reds can and should probably play some of their home games on the Gold Coast to attract those supporters...
[/b][/quote]
Not really a big deal. In the A-League the Queensland Roar have recently rebranded as Brisbane Roar with the inception of North Queensland and Gold Coast based teams. Having state names is pointless anyway. Queensland should switch to Brisbane and NSW should switch to Sydney as they only ever play season games in their respective cities. Western Force can stay the same and I don't see why there is any need for ACT to switch to Canberra.
F
Fushitsusha
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wally @ May 18 2009, 01:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
While Melbourne is the logical choice, I wouldn't entirely discount the Gold Coast. The fact that they are part Queensland is irrelevant. They have a great purpose built stadium, a fast growing population, decent rugby support and big corporate dollars. They may not be ready for a team just yet, rugby has probably missed the boat with rugby league, football, basketball and now AFL all committing teams on the coast, but in 5-10 years I defiantly see them as having a successful franchise.
[/b][/quote]
Will that mean the Reds will cease to exist in their current form and be rebranded?
You obviously can't have the 'Queensland Reds' and the 'Gold Coast whatever'...
If Australia is going to continue with state based teams the Gold Coast can't have a team... it's as simple as that... however, the Reds can and should probably play some of their home games on the Gold Coast to attract those supporters...
[/b][/quote]
Not really a big deal. In the A-League the Queensland Roar have recently rebranded as Brisbane Roar with the inception of North Queensland and Gold Coast based teams. Having state names is pointless anyway. Queensland should switch to Brisbane and NSW should switch to Sydney as they only ever play season games in their respective cities. Western Force can stay the same and I don't see why there is any need for ACT to switch to Canberra.
[/b][/quote]
You can't compare it with the A-League because it doesn't have the history associated with the Reds and Queensland...
The idea of changing the Reds to a Brisbane team would pretty much devalue any future clashes with the Waratahs as it'll no longer be a QLD v NSW affair...
I just don't see too many Reds' fans being happy with that idea...
I think the teams should remain state focused... after Victoria gets the nod for the new team I don't see Australia being able to sustain any more teams for a long while...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ May 18 2009, 01:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wally @ May 17 2009, 01:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ May 17 2009, 08:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The Australian Super teams are state based...
The idea of the Gold Coast fielding a team is just downright stupid when the Reds are already the team for QUEENSLAND...
If the Gold Coast wants to be involved in Super rugby it should only be in a way that sees the Reds play one or two games there a season...
Victoria is really the only viable option for another Australian team...[/b]
While Melbourne is the logical choice, I wouldn't entirely discount the Gold Coast. The fact that they are part Queensland is irrelevant. They have a great purpose built stadium, a fast growing population, decent rugby support and big corporate dollars. They may not be ready for a team just yet, rugby has probably missed the boat with rugby league, football, basketball and now AFL all committing teams on the coast, but in 5-10 years I defiantly see them as having a successful franchise.
[/b][/quote]
Will that mean the Reds will cease to exist in their current form and be rebranded?
You obviously can't have the 'Queensland Reds' and the 'Gold Coast whatever'...
If Australia is going to continue with state based teams the Gold Coast can't have a team... it's as simple as that... however, the Reds can and should probably play some of their home games on the Gold Coast to attract those supporters...
[/b][/quote]
Not really a big deal. In the A-League the Queensland Roar have recently rebranded as Brisbane Roar with the inception of North Queensland and Gold Coast based teams. Having state names is pointless anyway. Queensland should switch to Brisbane and NSW should switch to Sydney as they only ever play season games in their respective cities. Western Force can stay the same and I don't see why there is any need for ACT to switch to Canberra.
[/b][/quote]
You can't compare it with the A-League because it doesn't have the history associated with the Reds and Queensland...
The idea of changing the Reds to a Brisbane team would pretty much devalue any future clashes with the Waratahs as it'll no longer be a QLD v NSW affair...
I just don't see too many Reds' fans being happy with that idea...
I think the teams should remain state focused... after Victoria gets the nod for the new team I don't see Australia being able to sustain any more teams for a long while...
W
Woldog
Guest
Plus the Reds have been there for 2009 years ever since Jesus played Fullback, so they can't go from being the Queensland Reds to being the Brisbane Reds or simply the QR Reds.
W
Wally
Guest
Well aside from that, I hardly see the ARU letting the fact they are known as Queensland or NSW get in the way of growing the game for history's sake. Gold Coast and Western Sydney will eventually warrant teams. That is if we ever want rugby to upgrade from it's 'boutique' status and actually compete with the other codes on a serious level. Being the fourth most popular football code is not good enough.
