ARU confirms trans-Tasman competition idea was rejected by New Zealand

The ARU says they risked oblivion if they called New Zealand’s bluff and threatened to walk away from Super Rugby if the Kiwis didn’t agree to a trans-Tasman only competition.

CALLING New Zealand’s bluff by threatening to walk away from Super Rugby if the Kiwis didn’t accept a proposed trans-Tasman Super Rugby competition would have been “catastrophic”, the ARU says.

Chairman of the ARU, Cameron Clyne, confirmed that his organisation took a proposal to New Zealand to break away from South Africa and play a rejigged Super tournament between the two Tasman nations but it was rejected outright by the Kiwis.

Had the ARU held New Zealand to ransom and the Kiwis walked, there was the risk that Australia would have lost Bledisloe Cup Test matches given the international games are based on a working relationship with SANZAAR partners.

The ARU says trying to call the Kiwis’ bluff over a Trans-Tasman breakaway would have been catastrophic.

Critics say the ARU should have stood its ground and New Zealand would have caved in because they wouldn’t want to constantly travel to South Africa for games in a tournament without Australia.

Former Wallabies skipper Phil Kearns had urged the ARU to show some “big cojones” and stand firm.

SHAKE-UP: ARU to axe Force or Rebels in 2-3 days

ANALYSIS: What Super cull means for Australian rugby

But Clyne said had the ARU done so, and New Zealand joined with South Africa and left Australian rugby on its own, the code here faced oblivion.

“You don’t call a bluff unless you’re prepared for the outcomes,” Clyne said.

“I’ve enjoyed the amount of people who’ve become neurologists in this game and made assessments about anatomical requirements.

“People say ‘Australia should just tough it out, the Kiwis will never fly over the top of you to play South Africa’.

“You’ve got to be absolutely sure that’s the case, if you’re going to play that card.

“You may think it, but you don’t know.

“We’re in this to get the best outcome for Australian rugby, so are the other SANZAAR partners. Everyone’s looking at it from their own perspective.

“You cannot play that card unless you’re prepared for the outcome, it may very well be that they do fly over the top of you.

“You may say that’s a remote possibility, but that would be catastrophic for Australian rugby.

“So you play that card, even if there’s a small risk that might occur, it’s a very dangerous game to play.

“You try [to] collaborate with your joint venture partners.”

Kearns told Fox Sports’ Super Rugby program nearly a fortnight ago: “If Australia called their (SANZAAR’s) bluff, so let’s say South Africa and New Zealand go off and play in your own tournament, let’s see how quickly they get tired of that — going over the top of Australia back and forth the whole time.

“And the fact is, the crowds are down and audiences are down on TV when a South African team plays.

“We don’t get up at two o’clock in the morning to watch that.

“Our game needs some big cojones right now.”

New Zealand rugby is keen to maintain links with South Africa.

ARU chief executive Bill Pulver said Australia couldn’t sell a domestic tournament without New Zealand and South Africa to broadcasters.

“Ultimately the conclusion, if you went to a domestic-only competition, is that you would struggle to match the revenue you get today, and you would struggle to improve your high performance outcomes,” Pulver said.

“So while it’s an option we considered it’s not a particularly good one.”

Clyne said while the Kiwis are reticent to cut off South Africa, the ARU will continue to push the case for a trans-Tasman only competition beyond this current broadcast deal that expires at the end of 2020.

“At the end of the day there’s not an appetite at the moment, when that appetite emerges we will always continue to push it, we think it’s got merit,” Clyne said.

“But at the moment this is the one that’s actually got the majority or consensus support from SANZAAR and it’s the one we’re going to pursue.

“But we’ll keep talking about what options we can get.”

Asked why the Kiwis did not support the idea, Clyne replied: “You can talk to New Zealand”.

He added: “It’s an attractive model because of time zone and fan engagement, but the reality is that’s not a model that we support at this point in time.

“We’re supportive of the 15, we think that’s a model that will work, and we’ll continue to explore other models.”

The ARU said it is unlikely the SANZAAR partnership will be broken up beyond this Super Rugby deal because the big money is made from Test matches between the nations.

“They’re intertwined, we have to remember SANZAAR governs Super Rugby and The Rugby Championship,” Clyne said.

“The Rugby Championship is a very important component and a very key revenue driver from both a broadcast and ARU perspective.

“So you can’t separate that. Part of any discussion around trying to maintain on the whole - while we are fierce rivals on the field - what is generally a good working relationship with SANZAAR is actually that we want to play Super Rugby but we also want play Test matches.

“That’s quite critical, so you can’t separate the two.”