My personal belief,is that the NZRFU has taken on board,the feelings of rugby fans in 2009 and decided that financially there has to be a change.Therefore,support now given to referees(given on the quiet,mind you) super 14 teams told to front up(again on the quiet) and ticket prices now more"spectator friendly."Let`s not forget,that 2011 needs NZ spectator support and it wont come from a repeat of the dreadful organisation and administration of rugby,as we saw in 2009.

I'm not sure whether Grant Fox actually reads these comments but I have a question for him seeing as he has played at the highest level. Anyone else feel free to answer this:

Nowadays everyone is talking about the rules and how it has affected rugby to the extent that it needs fixing. Well, back in the 70's and 80's when I was a kid, I don't remember there being any problems like this. Forwards were against forwards and backs were against backs. We didn't have walls of defence lined up across the field like we see now. Why has it changed to the mess we have nowadays and can we go back and see what worked back then and re-introduce them back into the modern day? I'd say that rugby is one of the few sports that has gone backwards over the past 30 years in terms of evolution. Played the way it is supposed to be played, rugby is great. Now it's good but not great.

Well PB that's true but that isn't exactly new or surprising either. Unfortunately rugby will always struggle. It may ebb and flow, have good times and bad but generally be ranked 3rd at best. I reckon the perception (fact) that rugby is a game for snobs, bankers and private school boys is half the problem in Oz. That doesn't sit well with the average Aussie. Even public shool boys who play union are steered towards league as they get older because of peer pressure, limited opportunities in schools and if they are good enough, they get enticed by money to play league. Money which union doesn't have because of the ARU putting money in the top end. In my view it's a short-sighted, band-aid solution. All the high-profile league signings over the years have been major fails for the ARU in terms of getting some return for their purchases.

Yes PB it is a concern because even though rugby is far from a perfect spectacle, it's a great game that seems to be lost on most of the Aussie public.

Ash you continue to miss my point. No one is arguing whether NRL rules the roost in NSW and QLD. My point remains that the ARU should be gravely concerned by now considering the lack of interest in the Super 14's.

@ Ash #7.

Touche my learned friend. End of the day, Union has true international appeal and broadcasting coverage as opposed to League. League has a regional appeal: is strong in NSW, Northern England and Auckland. Its also Papua New Gineau's #1 sport... League has been professional for over 100 years, but that has not made it the international game that Union clearly is and has been for the same length of time.

Sorry PB.

Cheers

Not really PB. As I say, League is far more popular and has been for a long, long time. It's so entrenched into the NSW sporting scene and even the NSW population in general that I reckon no amount of showcasing and promotion by Union will ever surpass League, despite John O'Neill's beliefs. I'd say Union would be better off aiming for only a cut of the sporting landscape and don't try and pretend that it's in serious competition with League. So by you saying all those things about how much newspaper coverage, tv time, public interest etc - it's nothing new, surprising or enlightening.

Super 14 or 15 will always come 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) to NRL in NSW even not taking into consideration that the typical league fan in NSW thinks that the game itself is 'boring'. The super 14 is a new comp in comparison; it only has 4 (this year) Aussie teams of which only 1 comes from NSW; it's played in 3 different timezones which is not conducive to high viewership numbers; and it doesn't invoke the same type of tribal passion as say a Parra vs Souths match. Isn't it any wonder why it's not as popular or gets more media coverage?

Yes rugby does have its problems on and off the field in Australia but I think it can co-exist with League without all the endless and sometimes pointless comparisons between the 2 codes.

@ ash #5 You seem upset Ash. My "point" is that Super 14 includes 4 teams from Australia with another on the way in 2011 yet interest in the game is negligible and the competition starts this coming weekend! For example Monday's edition of NSW's biggest selling tabloid's sports section's first five pages were all league, then two pages of cricket, NFL super bowl,then soccer and surfing. There was a small story about ex league player Mark Gasiner's possible return from France in June. That's it! This should be of great concern to the ARU and the Super 14 organisers including the kiwis. Get my point?

@Paul Brookes, wow not exactly surprising news given rugby league is far more popular than union. That's like saying there's more interest in cricket in Australia than baseball.

They say that NZ is obsessed with rugby. Well NSW is just as obsessed with league given that rugby league is almost in every night's sports news even when nothing is happening.

What's your point?

Paul Brooks #1

and rightly so, NRL is a competition with history and pride. Super 14 is a joke.

@ simon #2 Actually I was talking about general media coverage including print and radio Simon. You seem to be referring to the Indigenous and All Stars game which is being televised live on the nine network and has attracted tremendous media attention and is a sell out. The 14s will struggle.