SARU gets Super Rugby Wish

[TRF_stormer2010]

I like the NFL system. It recognises a reality that we have taken a long time in Super Rugby to come to terms with; the fact that it is simply impractical for teams to be travelling east and west, thousands of kilometres across several time zones for the whole season. The thing is, the AFC/NFC Conferences things is how it always been for them has existed for a long time (since 1960) and the fans are used to it. You never hear calls from fans about the draw being unfair because such and such a team never had to play some other team tam to get to the post-season. They've never known it any other way!



I agree IA. Australia already has two weak franchises (the Force and the Rebels) and the addition of a 6th team would further weaken the overall strength of Australian Rugby. Where are they going to find another 30+ Australian players of elite standard when they haven even been able to find them for the Rebels.

As for NZ, well, I don't want another franchise here as not only will it dilute the talent, it would require a redrawing of the boundaries of at least two existing franchises. The affected franchises would not be pleased about that.

I would be happy enough if a "Pacific Islands" franchise wanted to base themselves here. They could use Mount Smart Stadium when the Warriors NRL team moves to Eden Park.

I think one of the options thay are looking at is a two confeence system, with Australia and NZ in one Conference. and Saouth Africa and Argentina in the other

AIUI, there are two likely candidate formats being looked at (abbreviated from he NZ Herald website)

The split tournament
Australia and New Zealand form a trans-Tasman conference and South Africa and Argentina play separately with the top teams from each moving into a combined playoff, but that idea comes with four problems:
1. the drop in revenue of not initially involving South Africa is likely to be greater than the drop in travel costs of not having to go there.
2. the NZRU High Performance team wants young players to be exposed to games in the Republic at Super Rugby level, while the senior players could do without the travel as they will be on duty in South Africa for the All Blacks
3. introducing Argentinian sides is problematic. For the sake of integrity, the two conferences surely have to have equal numbers of teams? If there are 10 in the trans-Tasman conference, there has to be 10 in the other. South Africa want six teams regardless and could probably whistle up another two - so the talk is of two sides being formed in Argentina.
4. Where they would get the players from - the bulk of the Pumas are offshore in France earning big money - could it really be an equitable set-up given the amount of travel that would be involved?

Expand to 18 teams under the existing format
The competition continues mostly as is but expands to 18 teams. South Africa are adamant they want six teams - which would mean the New Zealand and Australian conferences each adding another team. There is a desire to introduce teams from different countries but it would challenge the integrity concept if a team from Japan was in the Australian conference - on the basis they would have to travel an awful lot. Under an this format there could be home and away fixtures within each conference as there are now - with the New Zealand sides playing three of the six sides in each of the other two conferences. This format would keep the tournament at its current length of 21 weeks - 16 pool games, two byes and a three-week play-off series.

Also at issue here are the players and the Player's Associations in the three SANZAR countries. They have some things they won't compromise on
1. the length of off season: they don't want the season to start before March to ensure that test players are given a 12-14 week rest and reconditioning window.
2. the June window has to be moved to July to allow Super Rugby, in whatever format, to be played in one continuous block.

The optimum outcome for the players would be an 18-week, unbroken competition, that starts in the first week of March and ends in the last week of June. They would head straight into the 'July' test programme and then a few weeks off before the commencement of the Rugby Championship - staying basically as is.

Problems will begin if the June window can't be shifted, and if that does happen, then SANZAR are looking at the possibility of Super Rugby being played concurrently with the test programme as happens in the NH with the Six Nations.

There is a third option of which I am a fan:

2 tiers of 12 teams:

Tier 1 (capped at 12 teams)
Chiefs, Crusaders, Blues, Hurricanes, Bulls, Cheetahs, Sharks, Stormers, Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Rebels

Tier 2 (ideally 12 teams but it has the option of being in flux)
Highlanders, Lions, Kings, Western Force, Argentina 1, Argentina 2, Samoa XV 1, Tonga XV 1, Fiji XV 1, Namibia XV 1

With promotion and relegation matches between the bottom of tier 1 and the top of tier 2 in the play-off weeks. Tier 2 should start 2 weeks earlier to allow for the top teams to have finished their play-offs of tier 2 when the regular season of tier 1 ends and the bottom team(s) has been identified.

I'd have each team play each other as per the old Super 12. That'd only be 11 games though so revenue might be an issue. There is an option to keep the conference system and have 6 interconference games and then play the other 8 'foreign' teams for a total of 14 regular season games for each team.

 

[nickdnz]

I'm probably the only one - but my suggestion would be increase by how many teams you want to increase to - and then just make it a series system without a playoff. So hyperthetically 16 teams = 15 games - no playoffs - or if there are playoffs just make it semi-final/final so we lose that extra match which makes no f*cking sense anyway. Traveling isn't much more of a ***** then it is now anyway.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'm probably the only one - but my suggestion would be increase by how many teams you want to increase to - and then just make it a series system without a playoff. So hyperthetically 16 teams = 15 games - no playoffs - or if there are playoffs just make it semi-final/final so we lose that extra match which makes no f*cking sense anyway. Traveling isn't much more of a ***** then it is now anyway.

Yeah, the travelling part is now to every team an equal stepping stone.

and I am all for the league setup as you mentioned, but then we again look at the problem of the "Domestic" season being too long.

I think it will be in every player's interest that there are fewer games than there are now. play a maximum of 10 "regular" games and maybe 3-4 playoff games is more than enough to have a proper indication of which team is truly the best that year, and it will limit the amount of injuries.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

there is too much compromise so that its fair for everyone (money wise), no one wants to make a comp that actually has anything at stake, all it results in is these games that don't mean anything...we had a shocker...doesn't matter...we'll be in next year so no point trying too hard

European football has it right, play to win or you drop, teams still fighting in the last round just to scrape into fifth or sixth etc.

make it a proper conference system, no cross conference games until playoffs, each team in a conference plays each other twice and the top two go to a finals series. That way each conference can have as many teams as it likes. If you actually want to make it important then rotate the finals series around the countries so once every three years you get a top six team finals tournament played around the country. teams only have to pay to travel overseas once (if they make the playoffs) and TV won't be hit as bad because all the RSA fans have to watch on TV and when you are hosting you will pack the stadium because you wont see the Chiefs or Crusaders again for three years…if you play well

before i get flamed, i know it won't happen...i am just really sick of the pointless changes for no reason that i can see other than removing any RISK (i call it motivation), all we end up with is this monstrosity where everyone plays different teams so if you're lucky you won't have to play the crusaders and the reds this year so have an easier run to the finals compared to someone who did have to play them. </SPAN>

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I might get some bad responses to this but hear me out:

What if we abandon the franchise system all together? Let's go back to 1996 and have provincial teams in Super Rugby. Make it a competition you can qualify for and there will be much more to fight for (like Jabby says). It means we will have 14 teams in both South Africa and New Zealand who compete for 6 spots, Australia can get a proper domestic competition with 5 teams of which the best 3 qualify. Argentina, Japan and PI add a team each, bringing the total to 18. Maybe we can even through in a Welwitschias team from Namibia to get them into club rugby (they were already in the Vodacom Cup).

 

[smartcooky]

I might get some bad responses to this but hear me out:

What if we abandon the franchise system all together? Let's go back to 1996 and have provincial teams in Super Rugby. Make it a competition you can qualify for and there will be much more to fight for (like Jabby says). It means we will have 14 teams in both South Africa and New Zealand who compete for 6 spots, Australia can get a proper domestic competition with 5 teams of which the best 3 qualify. Argentina, Japan and PI add a team each, bringing the total to 18. Maybe we can even through in a Welwitschias team from Namibia to get them into club rugby (they were already in the Vodacom Cup).

Severe disadvantage to NZ teams. Lets say that the five NZ teams that qualify are Canterbury, Auckland, Wellington, Otago and Waikato. That would mean players who play for Hawkes Bay, Tasman, Taranaki, Northland, North Harbour, Manawatu, Counties-Manukau, Southland and Bay of Plenty would not be involved in Super Rugby; players like....

Hawkes Bay
Israel Dagg, Zac Guildford

Tasman
Tom Marshall, Quentin MacDonald, Joe Wheeler, George Stowers

Taranaki
Michael Bent, Craig Clarke, Jason Eaton, James Broadhurst, Jarrad Hoeata, Chris Smylie, Beauden Barrett, Jayden Hayward, Kurt Baker, Andre Taylor.

Northland
Tone Kopelani, Hale T-Pole, Bryce Williams, Rene Ranger.

North Harbour
James Parsons, Josh Olsen, Jordan Manihera, Brenton Helleur, David Raikuna, Tua Saseve.

Manawatu
Nick Crosswell, Callum Gibbins, Tevita Taufu'i, Jason Emery, Aaron Cruden

Counties-Manukau
Bundi Aki, Simon Lemalu, Mahonri Schwalger, Jimmy Tupou, August Pulu, Tim Nanai-Williams.

Southland
Jamie Mackintosh, David Hall, Josh Bekhuis, John Hardie, Scott Eade

Bay of Plenty
Sam Kane, Tanerau Latimer, Kenny Lynn

Now I know that some of these players might not now be in Super Rugby, and some have already left, but these were just off the top of my head, and I am sure there will be kiwi fans out there who will be able to add to this list.

The other thing that would happen is that we would end up with our ITM Cup competition severely skewed. Players will naturally want to be involved in Super Rugby, so they will transfer from weaker teams to stronger teams, and we could end up with a competition that lacks integrity, such as the English Premier League where 98% of the best players are playing for only five teams.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Severe disadvantage to NZ teams. Lets say that the five NZ teams that qualify are Canterbury, Auckland, Wellington, Otago and Waikato. That would mean players who play for Hawkes Bay, Tasman, Taranaki, Northland, North Harbour, Manawatu, Counties-Manukau, Southland and Bay of Plenty would not be involved in Super Rugby; players like....

Hawkes Bay
Israel Dagg, Zac Guildford

Tasman
Tom Marshall, Quentin MacDonald, Joe Wheeler, George Stowers

Taranaki
Michael Bent, Craig Clarke, Jason Eaton, James Broadhurst, Jarrad Hoeata, Chris Smylie, Beauden Barrett, Jayden Hayward, Kurt Baker, Andre Taylor.

Northland
Tone Kopelani, Hale T-Pole, Bryce Williams, Rene Ranger.

North Harbour
James Parsons, Josh Olsen, Jordan Manihera, Brenton Helleur, David Raikuna, Tua Saseve.

Manawatu
Nick Crosswell, Callum Gibbins, Tevita Taufu'i, Jason Emery, Aaron Cruden

Counties-Manukau
Bundi Aki, Simon Lemalu, Mahonri Schwalger, Jimmy Tupou, August Pulu, Tim Nanai-Williams.

Southland
Jamie Mackintosh, David Hall, Josh Bekhuis, John Hardie, Scott Eade

Bay of Plenty
Sam Kane, Tanerau Latimer, Kenny Lynn

Now I know that some of these players might not now be in Super Rugby, and some have already left, but these were just off the top of my head, and I am sure there will be kiwi fans out there who will be able to add to this list.

The other thing that would happen is that we would end up with our ITM Cup competition severely skewed. Players will naturally want to be involved in Super Rugby, so they will transfer from weaker teams to stronger teams, and we could end up with a competition that lacks integrity, such as the English Premier League where 98% of the best players are playing for only five teams.

true...and then they might stop moaning about playing too much rugby...or they try harder in domestic rugby (i'm looking at you nonu)....and think of all the payers that wouldn't normally get to play super rugby, the average skill level will rise, you cant take class away from the really top guys....and every so often manawatu...or southland...or hawkes bay will get to play super rugby, one season of good crowds would probably fund them for three more years

Exeq: i've been harding on the exact idea for ages but normally get shot down, think you'd find the unions who never get to hoast a super game would be right behind

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Taking things for granted is what happens with the franchise system. I have to admit, NZ has a better environment than SA with regards to the smaller unions but if we want to expand Super Rugby and give more players a shot at playing international club games, dropping the franchise-idea is the best way to go.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

agreed, i also think the money would be easier as there would be fewer teams in any region to sponser and a single team could be playing more so could demand more from sponsers. finally one management structure for the local team rather than, in our case, both the Highlanders and Otago should be cheaper

to clarify, i realise they are different organisations but i mean there are two managers...and two CEO's...and two everything else who at least in a very simplistic way are gettign paid from the same local sposers and ticket sales etc.

It would also, possibly, mean at least the finals of the itm cup might be watched more overseas as it decide who will be playing "my team" in next years super comp

finally finally, the ORFU runs the local club rugby, if they were getting a better income from possible international TV rights then that money is getting to the grass roots faster

 

[smartcooky]

The other thing you haven't considered is the supporters, and remember, they aren't just the supporters that go the the game, they're the ones that pay their Sky Sport subscriptions and buy merchandise too. You move away from the franchise system and you'll alienate the supporters from the nine provincial teams not represented, and that is significant. Only 37% of New Zealand's rugby supporters live in the five major unions I mentioned earlier, and that was the major marketing reason why the NZRU went with the combined teams back in 1996.

Can the NZRU really afford to flip the bird at the other 63% of the rugby supporters in New Zealand?

Take the Crusaders franchise territory, for example, which includes South Canterbury, Mid-Canterbury, Canterbury, North Canterbury and Marlborough, Nelson, Westland and Buller. It has a population (and therefore potential fan base) of 876,000. Splitting up the franchise and having Canterbury going alone excludes about 350,000 of those. I'm a Tasman supporter and a Crusaders supporter, but not a Canterbury supporter. If Tasman is not represented in Super Rugby, then I would go into "don't give a crap" mode and I certainly would NOT support Canterbury, or any other of the teams. Just to give you an idea of the financial impact of that on a wider basis, almost half of all Crusaders jersey and merchandise sales are from outside the Canterbury Provincial Union boundaries

Just to go back to the player and team strength issue again for a moment. I seriously doubt whether any of the Provincial Unions would be competitive in Super Rugby. Can you see the current Waikato team being able to compete with the Bulls, Stormers or Brumbies? IMO, they would get their clocks cleaned!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

lets all have a group hug!...everyone gets a trophy for participating....PLEASE!

i support one of the five major cities....when was the last time we would have qualified for super rugby....that mean one of your smaller unions is already getting a shot

Guildford and Dagg stick in the bay because they want to drive the team into super rugby

smith and cruden do the same for manawatu

it would help stop these stars moving to the bigger unions (at least at first) if they thought they got get their "real team" over the line.

local sponsors would be more interested in getting involved because their adds would be seen by a bigger audience

finally, a fair chunk of the smaller unions dont feel a connection to their local super franchise anyway! southland by and large are not fans of the highlanders. Hawkes Bay feel a stronger relationship to the chiefs or the highlanders due to them picking up bay players and taranaki is trying to buy into the chiefs...real strong bond with the canes there...its all a myth

as stong as my bond is with the highlanders...it is manufactured...i would rather see Otago


as an example, the super comp in 2012 based on the 2011 itm would have seen auckland, wellington, canterbury, taranaki and BOP!..their is two of your minor unions right there

and the 2009 comp would have had Hawkes bay and Southland
</SPAN>

 

[smartcooky]

lets all have a group hug!...everyone gets a trophy for participating....PLEASE!

i support one of the five major cities....when was the last time we would have qualified for super rugby....that mean one of your smaller unions is already getting a shot

Guildford and Dagg stick in the bay because they want to drive the team into super rugby

smith and cruden do the same for manawatu

it would help stop these stars moving to the bigger unions (at least at first) if they thought they got get their "real team" over the line.

local sponsors would be more interested in getting involved because their adds would be seen by a bigger audience

finally, a fair chunk of the smaller unions dont feel a connection to their local super franchise anyway! southland by and large are not fans of the highlanders. Hawkes Bay feel a stronger relationship to the chiefs or the highlanders due to them picking up bay players and taranaki is trying to buy into the chiefs...real strong bond with the canes there...its all a myth

as stong as my bond is with the highlanders...it is manufactured...i would rather see Otago


as an example, the super comp in 2012 based on the 2011 itm would have seen auckland, wellington, canterbury, taranaki and BOP!..their is two of your minor unions right there

And the exclusion of Otago and Waikato, resulting in an even greater alienation of the national fan base. There are many more fans there than there are in Taranaki and Bay of Plenty

Regardless Jabby, can't you see how this would weaken the overall strength of the New Zealand teams in the tournament? Its not about having everyone participate, it about the money and the credibility of New Zealand rugby.

The current format has ALL 150 of New Zealand's top players involved. With a non-franchise arrangement using Provincial Unions, as many as 50 of those top players, including several All Blacks, would not be playing in Super Rugby. This could only be bad for New Zealand Rugby. I seriously doubt that we would even get a team into the play-offs under the Super 12/14 format, and under the current Super Rugby format, the NZ conference would be exactly what we currently accuse the Australian Conference of; being weak and allowing teams to get into the play-offs via the side door.

On the sponsorship issue, by splitting the franchises, you actually limit the sponsorship range. For example, if Tasman were ever to qualify for such a tournament, there is no large Canterbury company that is going to be a major sponsor, and there is simply no Nelson or Blenheim company that could afford the huge costs involved in participating.

The non-franchise system using Provincial Unions is financially unsustainable.

 

[Sharkman84]

Super Rugby: Talk of 6th NZ franchise exciting Hawke's Bay

By: Adam Cooper, | Latest Rugby News | Thursday September 5 2013 5:55

UPDATED 8:49am: Talks of a sixth New Zealand Super Rugby franchise are exciting the Hawke's Bay Rugby Union.

SANZAR boss Greg Peters has confirmed there will be a sixth South African team from 2016, and says there has also been a move from within New Zealand for a sixth franchise.

Hawke's Bay chief executive Mike Bishop says they have long desired a larger involvement in Super Rugby.

"We indicated, I think a year or three back, that when there was expressions of interest called for that we were interested.

"So yes, we're still interested."

Bishop says the news is encouraging, and it sounds exciting for New Zealand rugby.

"There's a lot of water to go under that bridge if it were to come under fruition, but we would talk to park the unions alongside us like the Manawatu's of that world because I doubt we would want to go that alone.

"But again that's purely speculative, we're talking something that may or may not be in the future."

The NZRU wants any expansion to Super Rugby to be a contestable process.

Meanwhile 13,000 tickets have been sold for Hawke's Bay's Ranfurly Shield defence against Counties Manukau on Saturday with around five thousand embankment tickets remaining.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/aucklan...talk-of-6th-nz-franchise-exciting-hawke-s-bay

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

There ya go! Bay City Rollers!

 

[Draggs]

Every match would have to be on a S A T U R D A Y night!

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

See? It all makes sense.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I don't know if any of my fellow Saffas watched Boots & All last night, but they showed an interview with Jurie Roux, which happened after the news broke.

He divulged 2 things of interest:
1. That SA will have 6 teams from 2016 (but not necessarily the Lions and the Kings)
2. That there are 2 models being looked at for the expanded format from 2016 onwards.

Now, this makes me wonder, whether a team like Griquas, Pumas or even Boland will be allowed to "tender" also for that 6th spot? And these 2 models, how many teams are being looked at, and what the types of formats will be. Maybe we should invite SANZAR to the forum and give them some of our ideas??

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I don't know if any of my fellow Saffas watched Boots & All last night, but they showed an interview with Jurie Roux, which happened after the news broke.

He divulged 2 things of interest:
1. That SA will have 6 teams from 2016 (but not necessarily the Lions and the Kings)
2. That there are 2 models being looked at for the expanded format from 2016 onwards.

Now, this makes me wonder, whether a team like Griquas, Pumas or even Boland will be allowed to "tender" also for that 6th spot? And these 2 models, how many teams are being looked at, and what the types of formats will be. Maybe we should invite SANZAR to the forum and give them some of our ideas??

The way SARU is handling SR and CC is strange. IMO we should either go the NZ route and have SARU as a benevolent dictator with the Springboks the main aim or we should give the Provinces free reign and a system whereby any one of them can get promoted on the back of good performances where the CC/SR becomes the pinnacle to a very large extent. As is things are just muddled. I'd prefer the regions to have free reign actually.. I don't know what that says about me that I tend to prefer province over country.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The way SARU is handling SR and CC is strange. IMO we should either go the NZ route and have SARU as a benevolent dictator with the Springboks the main aim or we should give the Provinces free reign and a system whereby any one of them can get promoted on the back of good performances where the CC/SR becomes the pinnacle to a very large extent. As is things are just muddled. I'd prefer the regions to have free reign actually.. I don't know what that says about me that I tend to prefer province over country.

Yeah, I'm a bit on the fence... A couple of years ago I would have been all for the free reign for the clubs/unions. But I'm now more heading towards the SARU contracts like NZ. The more players starts to voice their opinion on this matter, the more of a tendency there will be to take it further. At the Moment it has been only Pierre Spies that has been vocal about it, and that he wants a central SARU contract. He is perhaps one of the few guys who has no interest in playing in the NH for big bucks as he has been making big bucks here with sponsors like USN and Outsurance.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

And the exclusion of Otago and Waikato, resulting in an even greater alienation of the national fan base. There are many more fans there than there are in Taranaki and Bay of Plenty

Regardless Jabby, can't you see how this would weaken the overall strength of the New Zealand teams in the tournament? Its not about having everyone participate, it about the money and the credibility of New Zealand rugby.

The current format has ALL 150 of New Zealand's top players involved. With a non-franchise arrangement using Provincial Unions, as many as 50 of those top players, including several All Blacks, would not be playing in Super Rugby. This could only be bad for New Zealand Rugby. I seriously doubt that we would even get a team into the play-offs under the Super 12/14 format, and under the current Super Rugby format, the NZ conference would be exactly what we currently accuse the Australian Conference of; being weak and allowing teams to get into the play-offs via the side door.

On the sponsorship issue, by splitting the franchises, you actually limit the sponsorship range. For example, if Tasman were ever to qualify for such a tournament, there is no large Canterbury company that is going to be a major sponsor, and there is simply no Nelson or Blenheim company that could afford the huge costs involved in participating.

The non-franchise system using Provincial Unions is financially unsustainable.

I think I have made it quite clear I believe it would strengthen nz rugby in the ling run....you don't honestly thunk I would suggest it if I thought it was a bad idea....