KEY POINTS:
News that the NZRU is not loosening its restrictions on the selection of All Blacks living overseas but is thinking of allowing All Blacks to play for foreign franchises within the Super 14 is good to hear.
So, in a perverse way, is the fact that the financially powerful TV interests in the Super 14 are forcing the issue of what to do with this increasingly lame competition and (hopefully) that of the Tri Nations, where repetition and boredom have taken over from the anticipation and comparative rarity of the test matches of yesteryear.
As mentioned in this column last week, the NZRU simply must begin to outline and apply its strategies for re-energising rugby in this country or watch the game wither from the accelerating indifference of hundreds of thousands of fans.
The move by Rupert Murdoch's TV arm to shake up the Super 14 comes alongside viewing figures which would make any governing body or company queasy. Some viewing statistics show a 25 per cent drop in audiences, with the figure being 40 per cent in some cases.
Drop? That's not a drop, it's a plummet and it is redolent of the malaise which many commentators, not least this column, have been banging on about for years.
Murdoch's men are saying, in effect, 'don't wait for the end of the contract [2011] to start fixing the Super 14; let's have a look at it now'.
With all due respect to the NZRU and the fact that they are obviously taking steps in the right direction, it probably needs some strong outside influence to make things happen.
Television money is vital for the modern game. The TV bosses must have an exciting product to sell, same as anyone, or they not unnaturally lose interest and turn off the dollars tap. Rugby can simply not afford that. New Zealand rugby, after treating some stakeholders appallingly last year by withdrawing 22 All Blacks from the Super 14 in the name of World Cup success, firmly getting up the noses of their TV partners who were not consulted nor warned, can afford it even less.
But at least the NZRU are now applying themselves to the task and ideas like sabbaticals - allowing a player like Dan Carter to take a year off the Super 14/Tri Nations treadmill before admitting them back to selection consideration. Playing for foreign franchises also has merit.
It means that players can head off for some OE and different experiences (oh, yes and money) and can still be selected for the All Blacks even if they are playing in Durban, Cape Town or Brisbane, or Buenos Aires, come to that. The Super 14 is likely to be broadened and the extra franchises - maybe Argentina, USA, Canada, Pacific Islands and/or Japan - will add a new list of more exotic destinations where our top players can go to relieve the boredom but not relieve themselves of the All Black jersey.
Freeing up the franchises will create a new type of New Zealand rugby diaspora. All you have to do is look at Australian rugby these days and it seems there are at least four or five New Zealand-born players (the Queensland Reds have eight) in every team, technically eligible for the All Blacks.
Look what rugby league has achieved with its 'mate against mate' concept in State of Origin. Think how matches involving New Zealanders playing against each other in the Super 14 would spice things up a bit.
Think back only to last week, when perhaps the best moments of the Stormers-Hurricanes match was the big hits being pulled off by the likes of Ma'a Nonu and Tony Brown.
Think ahead to the All Blacks' end of year tour. They are due to play Munster - a fixture rich with history after Munster beat the 1972 touring All Blacks and which will be watched with even more fascination this year because of the presence in the Munster team (injuries and unforeseen events willing) of one Doug Howlett.
Then there's the growing possibility that the franchises might be opened up to private ownership. This was always the plan at NZRU headquarters when the Super rugby franchises were born but it was shelved in place of central contracts and ensuring that the NZRU had control over its All Blacks.
Fair enough, too, for that time anyway. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that model may have had its day and that the British version, of private owners and arrangements made with the national rugby body, may be the way to go - providing safeguards protecting players for national duty can be agreed.
Once private investment comes to town, we are looking at the Manchester United-Chelsea-Liverpool-Barcelona-AC Milan syndrome where a player's birthplace or regional connections becomes less important and where clubs can assemble a creme de la creme playing roster and pay them accordingly.
There are dangers there too; there are any number of examples of excess in English football. But private investment is probably the only way that enough money can come into the game here to prevent the wholesale drain of our big boys off to the cold climes and cold hard cash of the North.
It is also a moot point whether this will attract enough money - or whether the lure of travel will still win.
It's a start, anyway, and it will be a fascinating progress to watch. We just need to hurry so that there is still a game left to rescue.
