SANZAAR to cut 3 teams in 2018

[nush]

Super Rugby to be Super 15 again?

Just saw this news thread on the BBC sport website, seems like SA and Aus will be losing some teams next year. Could be a blessing in disguise for the Wallabies seeing how bad the teams have been and are doing over the last few years. http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/39547949

 

[FNS]

Sunwolfs are money. They will be here at least till the world cup. After that they will terminate them if they continue like this. As for the other teams, can the players be absorbed by the other teams or they wont have a place to play =/

 

[Ground We Won]

Sunwolfs are money. They will be here at least till the world cup. After that they will terminate them if they continue like this. As for the other teams, can the players be absorbed by the other teams or they wont have a place to play =/

Continue like what? They just beat the Bulls & have nearly beaten other sides. They have been competitive & shown growth & enthusiasm and they get good crowds.

 

[smartcooky]

As an outsider I think the most credible rumours I have heard are Kings, Cheetahs and Rebels cut, with Brumbies relocating to Melbourne. Melbourne has a population roughly the same as Scotland and NZ

Their best bet of regaining their standing internationally is long term investment in the big cities of Perth and Melbourne. Plus, if it reverts to round robin we can probably rule out seeing an Oz side in the playoffs for the next decade.

The problem is, they simply aren't interested. Rugby Union in Melbourne is a long, long way behind the other three football codes.

Firstly, do not underestimate how big AFL is in Melbourne. IT IS HUGE!!! Relative to size and population, it is bigger in Melbourne than the Premier League in England. Ten of the Eighteen AFL teams are in Melbourne, and AFL crowds are averaging almost 40,000 this season. With between five and nine games in Melbourne every weekend, that is a total audience of between 200,000 and 360,000 attending games over the Friday to Sunday period. This does not leave a lot of room for other football codes. Key games such as Hawthorn v Essendon, or Carlton v Collingwood regularly attract around 80,000.

Then there is soccer football; Melbourne has two teams in the "A" League; Melbourne City and Melbourne Victory. They both draw crowds in the 30,000 to 40,000 range.

Next comes NRL, with the Storm drawing about 18,000 per game, and that is with the team consistently performing well, in the top few teams in the competition..

Then the Rebels... crowd? What crowd?

I think this will be a bad decision in the medium to long term for SA and Oz rugby. SA because the Lions and now Stormers are already showing they can compete at the top level and therefore SA can support 6 teams and still compete for the ***le. Bad for Oz because they are living in another planet to me if they think they are magically going to compete with one or two less sides.

And yet, when Australia had only three or four teams and South Africa had only four or five, they performed a LOT better... five ***les between them.

The focus for these countries is on international rugby. The Springboks were a joke last year; the writing was on the wall when they lost to Japan in 2015, I think even the most ardent Bokke fans on this site will agree... 4 wins out of 12 games will be absolutely unacceptable to Bokke fans, and losing to Italy... really?

And Australia weren't much better... 6 from 15

The Chiefs losing Cruden, Lowe and Rennie is a sign of things to come and increased European poaching will naturally bring the NZ clubs back into the clutches of the SA ones as Europe can now poach A rated NZ talent with the widening gulf in TV money. There was no need to cut teams to try and "level the playing field".

Bruce, people have been saying that since the inception of professionalism in Rugby in 1995/96. Pundit after pundit has predicted the downfall of NZ rugby with all the best players going to Europe for the money... and pundit after pundit has got it wrong. The systems we have in place ensure that there is a steady stream of talent coming through to replace retirements, and players leaving for foreign contracts.

I said a few years ago, that players going to Europe didn't bother me from a NZ rugby point of view; that every time a New Zealand player gets signed up to play in Europe, a door closes for a new, young talent in the country they are going to, while here in New Zealand, a door opens for new talent to show what they can do. So far, unlike the pundits, I have been right, and I see no reason to change this view in the foreseeable future.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Hmmm. A lot of positives and negatives with this switch. I'm happy that it's happening but I think SA is getting a raw deal.

1. Travelling
With the Jaguares being in the SA Conference, and the format being that you play 8 "Derby Matches" in your own conference, means that all SA teams will travel to Argentina. Then add to that, they play 4 of each teams in the other conferences. So it is likely that we will play 2 teams of each conference at home, and 2 away. That means we're back to the 4/5 week tours for SA teams. Which was one of the main reasons why SA complained about the 3-conference system.

2. Cutting 2 SA teams
I don't think SA will make a call solely on the current season. So here I think the Kings and Cheetahs will be cut. We all understand the Kings being cut. As for the Cheetahs, they are the obvious choice, as they have always had low attendance figures, have been struggling financially up until the last 3 years, and has been consistently failing to keep their roster for more than one season. Hopefully this will result in all the SA teams being stronger, as there will be at least 50 more players to be used from 2 cut teams. Add to that, maybe our players will get a bigger pay raise, which could lead to more of them staying in SA than going abroad.

3. Conference System
Again, we have the same damn problem in that not all the teams will play against each other. SA teams won't play against at one NZ team and either an aussie team or the Sunwolves. As much as we want the strength vs. strength system back, it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I'm with you @TRF_heineken

I'm positive enough about the cut but not in favour of the conference system. Mainly because of the home and away conference fixtures. And I'm sure it won't be only SA and Aus teams who face gruelling travel schedules but NZ sides as well having to face off against more difficult teams and its difficult to see that change dramatically any time soon. I know I'm asking SA sides to travel to Australasia for 5 weeks instead of 3 but it does mean 1 less game in another continent which I think is little enough to ask for greater competition integrity and a simpler more understandable format since what we are looking at doing is making the competition easier to access and more appealing a product.

The Cheetahs are only important to SA rugby as a development side. They can retain that status in the CC. I am actually holding out hope that this cut puts more focus on the CC. Our SR sides have had to endure exodus upon exodus and has relegated our teams to development teams for the Bokke and Europe. Only the Lions have had a reasonable amount of player retention over the last two years. This cut along with the new 30 cap rule to play for the Bokke will hopefully assist in SA sides being in a better position to retain talent with less mouths to feed. If only our political situation can see an upturn. All the above and eve if SARU handles this perfectly (very doubtful) will count for little if the major push factors continue to gain mass.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'm with you @TRF_heineken

I'm positive enough about the cut but not in favour of the conference system. Mainly because of the home and away conference fixtures. And I'm sure it won't be only SA and Aus teams who face gruelling travel schedules but NZ sides as well having to face off against more difficult teams and its difficult to see that change dramatically any time soon. I know I'm asking SA sides to travel to Australasia for 5 weeks instead of 3 but it does mean 1 less game in another continent which I think is little enough to ask for greater competition integrity and a simpler more understandable format since what we are looking at doing is making the competition easier to access and more appealing a product.

The Cheetahs are only important to SA rugby as a development side. They can retain that status in the CC. I am actually holding out hope that this cut puts more focus on the CC. Our SR sides have had to endure exodus upon exodus and has relegated our teams to development teams for the Bokke and Europe. Only the Lions have had a reasonable amount of player retention over the last two years. This cut along with the new 30 cap rule to play for the Bokke will hopefully assist in SA sides being in a better position to retain talent with less mouths to feed. If only our political situation can see an upturn. All the above and eve if SARU handles this perfectly (very doubtful) will count for little if the major push factors continue to gain mass.

The thing is that NZ and Aussie teams will only have to play 2 games in SA or 1 game in SA and 1 in Argentina. Again they will only have a short tour while the SA teams and the Jaguares will have a gruelling 4/5-week tour. And if the Force gets the cut, then there is not stopover at Perth, meaning the teams will either have to fly directly to Japan or the Eastern part of Australia or NZ. I think our conference is again getting the short end of the stick here.

As for the Cheetahs. I agree with you.

But I wonder if we will get some sort of amalgamation like we had when the Cheetahs and the Lions were together and called the Cats. I'm hoping that SARU introduce the draft system which has been mentioned by a few people is the SA Rugby fraternity if we are only going to be 4 teams.

If we use the Currie Cup Model, then there is the Griquas and Cheetahs region that will be up for grabs. And I'm sure we all don't want a situation where players are then lured to a certain franchise for more money. Even though we all know the Sharks have first choice when it comes to Cheetahs players

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

The thing is that NZ and Aussie teams will only have to play 2 games in SA or 1 game in SA and 1 in Argentina. Again they will only have a short tour while the SA teams and the Jaguares will have a gruelling 4/5-week tour. And if the Force gets the cut, then there is not stopover at Perth, meaning the teams will either have to fly directly to Japan or the Eastern part of Australia or NZ. I think our conference is again getting the short end of the stick here.

As for the Cheetahs. I agree with you.

But I wonder if we will get some sort of amalgamation like we had when the Cheetahs and the Lions were together and called the Cats. I'm hoping that SARU introduce the draft system which has been mentioned by a few people is the SA Rugby fraternity if we are only going to be 4 teams.

If we use the Currie Cup Model, then there is the Griquas and Cheetahs region that will be up for grabs. And I'm sure we all don't want a situation where players are then lured to a certain franchise for more money. Even though we all know the Sharks have first choice when it comes to Cheetahs players

True enough but sadly that is a geographical fact we won't be able to balance out without a warped format which I think should have priority. The good thing is if our sides can manage home play-offs it is that little bit more difficult for overseas teams to come here and win.

I'm actually hoping for the Cheetahs, Force and Kings to retain their identities and play each other next year and look for more competition like the Lions did the year they were out of SR. Forming a kind of tier two to SR. I am hoping for future promo/relegation matches to legitimize the bottom tier as well as ensure the top tier continues to be the most competitive teams. I would say each SANZAR side gets to keep their 4 top teams automatically and the team with the 5th side (currently NZ) to hava home and away aggragate promo/releg matches. The 'Wolves and Jags can are interchangable enough- Jags in either SA or NZ conference depending on if NZ or SA have the 5th team and 'Wolves in either Aus or NZ conference depending on which one of them might have the 5th side in.

2nd teir can be used to retain existing investments and to 'break into new markets' as well as acting a balancing element should a bottom tier team get competitive and a top tier team drop. We can't say for sure the status quo will stay as is indefinitely.

 

[galumay]

I really suspect it wont matter how they fiddle with it, there are structural problems with Super Rugby that are insurmountable. I think the only possible path forwards is to put everything on the table and really start thinking outside the box.

I doubt that the comp will ever work spread round the whole circumference of the planet and as far north as Japan. Get rid of the Jaguares and Sun Wolves, consider whether SA isnt a better fit playing teams in Europe. (flying is basically North South so less time difference issues).

I dont believe Australia can support more than 3 teams, the franchises should probably be based in Qld, NSW & WA. Consider reducing NZ to 3 teams also, have a shorter 6 team comp between NZ & Aus franchises and concentrate on building on the strength of provincial comps - Mitre 10 and NRC.

So far any of the alternative "fiddling round the edges" I have seen proposed wont address the issues that face Super Rugby, too much travelling, a stupid conference system that fans hate, too many teams that will never be competitive at the top level, the ongoing dominance of NZ rugby, games played over too many time zones, a comp that bleeds money...

I realise my 'kite flying' will never even be considered, let alone any of it implemented, but if nothing else I will be able to quote this post and say "I told you say" when the proposed changes actually do nothing to turn Super Rugby around - and we are all whinging next season about what a disaster the changes have been!

 

[unrated]

We know two SA teams are going to lose their place and we are 98% sure that it will be the kings and Cheetahs. Its actually very sad. The Kings going i understand but the Cheetahs produce some of the best players in the country and i feel its extremely unjust for them to lose their spot. The have done so well in the CC and im confident they will end the year in Super rugby with a good record. Australia should lose 2 teams instead as i feel the Cheetahs deserve to be in the comp more, compared to the western force, Rebels, Sunwolves ,Kings.

When the Cheetahs lose their Super Rugby status they will lose most of their players thats almost guaranteed. I fear that if they disband these Super rugby teams then the players would have an option to either join another Super Rugby side or they can go to Europe and i suspect half of the cheetahs will go to Europe. As for the Cheetahs that has Springbok ambitions atleast some of our teams that remains will become stronger. It would be nice if the Sharks can get Francois Venter and their scrumhalf since Reinach is going to Europe. Also would not mind blommetjies. And Goosen (heard some rumours that he was due to join up with the cheetahs next year).

They cant establish the cats again it did not work. It was a failed experiment. If Saru even considers it then i feel it would just be better to merge the Cheetahs players into lions instead of making the cats play in Bloem and JHB as not one set of supporters can really identify with the Cats.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

There is no doubt the Cheetahs keep generating SR level quality players BUT they keep losing them and there is no continuity and depth. Bloem is the least sustainable of the 6 teams ITO economy and population and the fanbase has not pitched simple as that. The Lions drew more spectators playing outside of SR the year they were out than the Cheetahs manage. A lot of the players the Cheetahs 'generate' are actually EP players and that on top the Kings' geographics means I would rather the Kings stay ahead of the Cheetahs (not that it matters with both facing the axe unless there is a HUGE surprise in store for us). The Kings are better long term bet assuming the backroom gets sorted. That is a big assumption but doable. The Cheetahs' issues are too inherent in their isolated economic and geographic position and not something SARU can address.

Players from the two franchizes I'd be interested in for the Stormers is getting Chris Cloete back... that's about it really. The rest of their handier players would just add depth (not unwelcome). I'd be more concerned if I were the franchizes and SARU to lure Euro based players back or at least stemmy the tide; Reinach > Venter for instance for the Sharks. We've fallen into a trap of just letting our developed talent go overseas on the base of an assumption that we can simply replace them and there will be talented players coming in to replace them from the junior ranks or other franchizes. The problem comes in in that we lose those replacement players also within max 2 years and we end up having very green and continually disrupted player rosters. Stormers are getting Kitshoff back net season. If the rumors are true about Goosen then great. We need to target the under 30s that can still add value for a while to come and it needn't be Bok players but SR veterans that one can build a competitive team around and allow the youngster to come through systematically rather than new faces being forced to carry our teams each year; the likes of Marcel Coetzee, Reinach, any of a 1000 locks, Frans Steyn, Rob Ebersohn, Vincent Koch, Francois Hougaard etc.

 

[Car]

I doubt that the comp will ever work spread round the whole circumference of the planet and as far north as Japan. Get rid of the Jaguares and Sun Wolves, consider whether SA isnt a better fit playing teams in Europe. (flying is basically North South so less time difference issues).

I dont believe Australia can support more than 3 teams, the franchises should probably be based in Qld, NSW & WA. Consider reducing NZ to 3 teams also, have a shorter 6 team comp between NZ & Aus franchises and concentrate on building on the strength of provincial comps - Mitre 10 and NRC.

There would be less time difference issues, but European teams aren't used to travelling such distances. I can't imagine them wanting to have to put up with it. Which European competition should they join anyway? The Champions Cup? Pro 12? Because they surely won't join the Premiership or the Top 14.

NZ already dominates the competition, so why cut back the number of teams?

 

[TRF_heineken]

There is no doubt the Cheetahs keep generating SR level quality players BUT they keep losing them and there is no continuity and depth. Bloem is the least sustainable of the 6 teams ITO economy and population and the fanbase has not pitched simple as that. The Lions drew more spectators playing outside of SR the year they were out than the Cheetahs manage. A lot of the players the Cheetahs 'generate' are actually EP players and that on top the Kings' geographics means I would rather the Kings stay ahead of the Cheetahs (not that it matters with both facing the axe unless there is a HUGE surprise in store for us). The Kings are better long term bet assuming the backroom gets sorted. That is a big assumption but doable. The Cheetahs' issues are too inherent in their isolated economic and geographic position and not something SARU can address.

Players from the two franchizes I'd be interested in for the Stormers is getting Chris Cloete back... that's about it really. The rest of their handier players would just add depth (not unwelcome). I'd be more concerned if I were the franchizes and SARU to lure Euro based players back or at least stemmy the tide; Reinach > Venter for instance for the Sharks. We've fallen into a trap of just letting our developed talent go overseas on the base of an assumption that we can simply replace them and there will be talented players coming in to replace them from the junior ranks or other franchizes. The problem comes in in that we lose those replacement players also within max 2 years and we end up having very green and continually disrupted player rosters. Stormers are getting Kitshoff back net season. If the rumors are true about Goosen then great. We need to target the under 30s that can still add value for a while to come and it needn't be Bok players but SR veterans that one can build a competitive team around and allow the youngster to come through systematically rather than new faces being forced to carry our teams each year; the likes of Marcel Coetzee, Reinach, any of a 1000 locks, Frans Steyn, Rob Ebersohn, Vincent Koch, Francois Hougaard etc.

Well... It will settle the debate if Adriaan Strauss is really a Bulls or a Cheetah player... Lol.

In all honesty, the Cheetahs have had very poor attendance records for Super Rugby, and if they didn't get that big Toyota Sponsorship, they would have had more financial problems.

But I think on the long haul it might be a good thing for SA rugby, if the Cheetahs aren't part of Super Rugby. Their strengths have always been to develop players, especially with Grey College and the Shimlas. This way, they can focus more on development than week-in and week-out performances with players that are not all on the same standard.

The Cheetahs and the Kings are after all the newest additions of the SA Super Rugby franchises when the tournament started it's expansion, it makes sense that they will be left out.

 

[Midlander]

Sunwolves to Aus would be a great move IMO by SANZAAR. Also stop going to ****ing Singapore they don't care about the Wolves at least in tokyo they get a crowd and a atmosphere.



Absolutely. It's embarrassing when they play in Singapore. The stadium is what 75/80/85k and only 10/15k turn up. The last game in Tokyo was at the national stadium which I think is about 35k and it had a great crowd.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Sunwolves to Aus would be a great move IMO by SANZAAR. Also stop going to ****ing Singapore they don't care about the Wolves at least in tokyo they get a crowd and a atmosphere.



Absolutely. It's embarrassing when they play in Singapore. The stadium is what 75/80/85k and only 10/15k turn up. The last game in Tokyo was at the national stadium which I think is about 35k and it had a great crowd.

I'm sure with Sunwolves going to Aus they'll play in Tokyo. The current thing is that since they are in SA conference 1 and the Bulls and Stormers have to play against the Jaguares as well you'll see the one that plays Jaguares in Argentina play the Wolves in Singapore rather than Japan because we also need to tour Australasia as well. Its a minute consession to our sides because no other team will travel like the Stormers this year and last. I calculated that last year the Stormers put in more than double the miles Aus and NZ sides did. No wonder we were done for for the play-offs; travel wary AND undercooked.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Espn arg just showed a pic of a south african new paper cover saying that there is a strong chance the bulls would actually be second in line to be removed from SR.

Given how bad is rugby journalism in arg, if they say go right i instantly go left, and given the bulls history and current squad i find it simply unbelievable this is a realistic possibility, but i have to ask, is this a card on the table?

Dont get me wrong, the newspaper cover is avatar worthy for anyone wanting to tease a bulls fan and i love banter as much as the next guy, but i cant even begin to comprehend the idea of the bulls being cut.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the pic in question

 

[Bruno_ARG]

Get rid of a three times SR champion (and the only SA team to achieve that) makes no sense.

 

[BertSolomon]

The problem is, they simply aren't interested. Rugby Union in Melbourne is a long, long way behind the other three football codes.

Firstly, do not underestimate how big AFL is in Melbourne. IT IS HUGE!!! Relative to size and population, it is bigger in Melbourne than the Premier League in England. Ten of the Eighteen AFL teams are in Melbourne, and AFL crowds are averaging almost 40,000 this season. With between five and nine games in Melbourne every weekend, that is a total audience of between 200,000 and 360,000 attending games over the Friday to Sunday period. This does not leave a lot of room for other football codes. Key games such as Hawthorn v Essendon, or Carlton v Collingwood regularly attract around 80,000.

Then there is soccer football; Melbourne has two teams in the "A" League; Melbourne City and Melbourne Victory. They both draw crowds in the 30,000 to 40,000 range.

Next comes NRL, with the Storm drawing about 18,000 per game, and that is with the team consistently performing well, in the top few teams in the competition..

Then the Rebels... crowd? What crowd?

But the decision to give Melbourne a franchise - and Perth - was presumably a long-term one. Surely SANZAAR and the ARU weren't expecting these teams to be overnight successes? There is a century of Aussie Rules tradition to break into.

The AFL has put down teams on Australia's East Coast and they are in it for the duration. The Giants' crowds have attracted plenty of derision but the AFL won't be giving up on them because they want the national footprint that the ARU supposedly wanted until this year.

 

[mdaclarke]

Can't help feeling they are giving up too soon. Was there not an argument for keeping the 18 teams but having 2 leagues of 9 with 2 teams promoted and relegated each year?

The South African matches are the best to watch as they are on at a reasonable time in the UK so I am saddened to lose 2 South African teams. If 2 are to be culled then in my opinion surely the Cheetahs and Kings have to culled and the Bulls, Lions, Sharks and Stormers retained.

It is such a shame though.

 

[FNS]

SA time zone is great. We can watch jags in at a decent hour too. I hope they separate a lot travel to NZ/AUS. If we get 2 weeks here, 2 there, then 3 here, then 2 there....well we are going to lose a lot of matches just by been tired. No profit in that for now one.