Former ABs say NO to NZRU

A survey by experienced New Zealand rugby writer Paul Verdon reveals Murray Mexted is far from alone as a former All Black championing the NPC remaining as a 14-team competition.

Mexted, who has spent 17 years as a rugby commentator, reportedly ran foul of his bosses at Sky Television for his decision to speak out against the New Zealand Rugby Union's (NZRU) decision to cull the competition to 10 teams for next year.

A survey of 250 former All Blacks has found that 97 per cent also favour retaining 14 provinces.

A huge majority want a special general meeting before any NZRU decision to change the format and most do not want the subject then revisited by the NZRU until after the 2011 World Cup.

The survey was not sent to current All Blacks.

Verdon describes it as the most momentous decision to be made in 140 years of provincial rivalry.

Here's what some of the All Blacks said when asked: "Do you think the 14-team Air New Zealand Cup competition should be reduced to 10 teams?"

Sir Colin Meads: No. The NZRU has got to leave it as is. They've given the smaller provinces three or four years to get it right ... They're up to speed and now they're going to be sacked. It's wrong!

Ian Kirkpatrick: No. I favour the retention of the 14 teams. If they didn't want to continue in the future, they would put their hand up.

Sam Strahan: No. Relegation would destroy interest in the game locally.

Murray Mexted: No. Rugby provincialism is the heart of rugby in New Zealand. Reducing it by one-third is very short-sighted!

Richie Guy: No. If "4 million people" are to continue at the top of world rugby we cannot place people on the scrapheap.

Laurie Mains: No. All teams have made great contributions this year. New Zealand rugby needs a wide base of top competition to stay strong. Unions need to unite and stand up to the NZRU even if they have loans from the NZRU.

Grahame Thorne: No. Mr Tew's thoughts are warped! Okay, the money's important. But so is rugby.

Ian MacRae: No. The NPC provides the strength in numbers for professional rugby.

Terry Lineen: No reduction. Why? Because it provides the best rugby to watch!

Rod Ketels: No. This is the base of the pyramid of our game and it must be fed and nourished, not pruned back and then limiting high-profile games to the main centres.

Ian Irvine: No. This year's competition was the closest fought one that's ever been and this proves its worth. These intended NZRU changes would mean that players from the lower unions would go to the wealthy unions.

Maurice "Snow" Cockerill: No. Because the foundation of players would be reduced.

Bob Scott: No. The game belongs to the people and people go to look at their own provinces and players, not necessarily those of a manufactured type of union or franchise. Teams such as Manawatu, Hawke's Bay, Bay of Plenty and new shield holders Southland have been exciting to watch! As for the All Blacks, it is the depth from club and province, from areas remote or otherwise, that has provided much of New Zealand's strength.

Johnny Simpson: No. The more players that are retained in the top division, the better for the game.

Murray Watts: No. It will destroy rugby in those provinces.

Snow White: No. The number of teams in the competition is NOT the problem!

John Tanner: No. A reduction would reduce the incentives for players to continue to play in these areas.

Don McIntosh: No. Preserve the top division teams as they are, so that our future players can be nurtured properly.

Andy Jefferd: No. The current NPC competition is working well.

Jack Hazlett: No. A reduction in teams would actually lower the numbers of players with chances to go ahea.

Bob Lendrum: No. The teams that miss out on the Air NZ Cup would probably lose their talented players.

Bruce Hunter: No. It is essential that decisions like this are put aside until after the World Cup, when the whole picture may have changed for the better.

Derek Arnold: No. This year's NPC has just shown how we must all appreciate just how high are the numbers of avid spectators and supporters at this level.

Dennis Young: No! It would be a disaster for the unions demoted.

Keith Nelson: No. All 14 teams must keep competing in the championship. It makes for great rivalry.

Gerald Kember: Yes. Financial constraints, higher standards, season constraints.

Ron Elvidge: No. But 12 teams might work somehow.

Brett Harvey: Yes. I don't believe 14 teams is sustainable in this competition.

John Callesen: No, 14 teams provides a nationwide competition.

Mark Irwin: No. It would lower the morale of the dropped teams and might have a similar effect elsewhere.

Roy Roper: No. I see the intended reduction to 10 teams as a retrograde step which will result in loss of player numbers, standards and public interest.

Jeff Matheson: No. Super 14/15 should be reduced, not the NPC.

Bill Birtwistle: No. Such a major decision should wait until after the World Cup, when there could also be changes to the rules.

John Hotop: No. There is a good balance of provincial teams and the competition should not be looked at until after the World Cup.

Robin Archer: No. Because we need to retain a base of players at this level. A special general meeting should be called if they are going to continue down this avenue of change.

Doug Wilson: No. Keep the mainland-country provinces involved to foster the game right across New Zealand.

Ray Bell: No. The minor unions have every right to compete at this level.

Tuppy Diack: No. our strength is here! It would reduce numbers and there would be lost opportunities for our players.

Jules Le Lievre: No. The larger unions will dominate the provincial scene.

Neil Wolfe: No. This year has seen a very popular competition.

- © Fairfax NZ News