'Seconds' all round

Monday 2nd November 2009

I HOPE as the official chronicler of the Kiwi game on this site, it would not be treading on Bernard Baldy's immaculately-shod toes to proffer some thoughts on France after a week there with New Zealand.

France coach Bobbie Goulding was telling anyone that listened that France must get a second Super League club, and even on the evidence of one game, it was apparent that he was right.

It was clear that the players who ran out of gas after 50 minutes, when France only trailed by four points, were not the battle-hardened full-timers from the Catalans, but the part-time battlers from the French Championship.

The way they aimed up for so long shows that a second franchise could compete, and if a second franchise did compete, then so would France - in time - on the world stage.

Only last week, the British prop Adrian Morley, in advocating that more young Poms chase the NRL dream as he did, that the Kiwi game had improved when Kiwis began playing in the NRL in large numbers.

Those numbers, of course, grew, when the Warriors were admitted to the competition in 2005.

While there was always debate in New Zealand over the impact of the Warriors upon the local competition (an inevitable byproduct was a huge drop in crowds and quality in club football, although that process had already begun) their positive contribution to the game and particularly the national side cannot be questioned.

And yet while France, which has only had a Super League 'franchise' for four years, is now pushing for a second, New Zealand, having held an NRL one for 14, still has not mounted a credible, co-ordinated and concerted bid for a second licence of its own.

The commercial case for such a licence rests upon the television rights.

Sky pay $10m a year for the NRL rights in New Zealand. Say most of that is due to the Warriors' involvement in the competition, and suddenly they become the most valuable revenue-earning club for the NRL, more than covering their annual $3m grant.

It's been said that Sky have told the NRL that TV rights are not worth anything more if there is a second franchise in New Zealand. But of course they would - what commercial organisation would offer to pay more for something if it didn't have to?

If league wasn't worth $20m with a second Kiwi team, surely it would be worth another $3-4m for the prospect of two huge derby matches a year, and an extra 13 games to be host broadcaster at?

From the NRL's perspective, there must be significant benefits in properly expanding the Kiwi market, for viewing audience, playing numbers and commercial backers.

What the France v New Zealand test rammed home to me was that in terms of the game itself, the argument for a second 'franchise' in both countries is indisputable.