Proposal of Super rugby 2016. Interesting read.

Not sure if anyne will be able to read this without having a Google sign in, if you can't then I will copy and paste.

It breaks down a proposal for what format Supr rugby might look like in 2016. For me at least it answers a lot of question and satisfies my need for the currie Cup not to be negated.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5vh08BV2viweFdjbkN0UlBNREU/edit

Looks interesting, but I would say it is in the main a South African focused solution to a problem that seems to be mainly a South African problem.

Some questions/thoughts:

How would they propose splitting TV monies? After all the new proposal is effectively 3 domestic competitions with an international play-off at the end.

Could Australia operate 8 professional teams to SR standard?

How would this fit with the NH season? tge current proposal has no break between the end of the HP/Rabo season and the first summer test weekend, while it overlaps the French season?

There's some really interesting numbers in there Biltong, in particular the past revenue stuff, cheers.

Basically they're suggesting moving Curry Cup/NPC to the start of the season (expanding the CC top div from 6 to 8 teams, and making the NPC top tier 8 teams), with those comps making up the pool stages of Super 24. Expanding the Aussie club comp could be tricky though.

What I like about it is the fact that the Currie Cup gain importance as the "pool" fixtures for the Super Rugby compeition, and also the fact that we can move back to 8 teams.

Essentially it means we can now finance 8 provinces who will be able to retain top players.

It also means that we don't have a duplication where the Bulls as an example will play the Cheetahs twice in the Super Xv, then another two times in the Currie Cup and then perhaps again in a semi final or final.

Now each fixture gains importance as you will play each other team only once at home.

As for Australia, the author does suggest it is up to each country's Union to figure out the 8 teams.

The good thing here though is weak or strong conferences now won't affect the others.

I just can't see Australia buying into this - would they:

a) Be able to run 8 teams?
b) Get decent crowds and TV revenues for a domestic competition?


As I said this seems in the main to be a South African problem - and this solution could neatly solve all their issues, increase revenue and ensure more players stay at home.

What SA competition do the Argentinian development team currently play in? Would they now be cut adrift?

The parallels between this and the negotiations in Europe are interesting.


BTW I am not dissing the plan. Domestic first makes sense to me, and with a thriving economy South Africa can do much better financially than with the current system.

LT the Los Pampas are playing in the Vodacom Cup.

Ta (that is one below currie Cup?)

Yes.

LondonTiger wrote:I just can't see Australia buying into this - would they:

a) Be able to run 8 teams?
b) Get decent crowds and TV revenues for a domestic competition?


As I said this seems in the main to be a South African problem - and this solution could neatly solve all their issues, increase revenue and ensure more players stay at home.

What SA competition do the Argentinian development team currently play in? Would they now be cut adrift?

The parallels between this and the negotiations in Europe are interesting.


BTW I am not dissing the plan. Domestic first makes sense to me, and with a thriving economy South Africa can do much better financially than with the current system.

I actually think Australia would want this, it is the only manner in which they can finance a domestic comp.

By using Super Rugby revenue to finance three more teams would be the only way for them to do a viable compeition.

But... would the money brought in be split equally, or would each country negotiate their own deals?

So far the momey has been split equally, only an amount has previously been dedcuted for Currie Cup and ITam cup, , by memory 50 million dollars for Currie Cup and 20 million dollars for ITM cup.

South Africa has been sharing the spoils even though they are bringing in the most revenue on broadcasting.

Can't open the article, but it appears its the top Currie cup teams enter the super comp?

Is this not what used to happen?

It would be kinda like what happens in Europe top number of teams from each goes into cup comp.

I don't watch much Super rugby, but I do think the current system is unfair.
this would make it kinda like the H-cup.

In the short term would Aus look at adding Los Pampas and a couple of Pacific Islands Rugby Alliance teams to take them up to 8 teams?

However would expanding the SA teams to 8 not make it harder to keep top players? surely each team would receive less money that they currently do?

Basic priciple Kinshu.

The conferences in each country goes to 8 teams, butbinstead of every team having to travel, the conferences are closed and those 8 teams play a double round robin.

They then play semi and final.

The winner of each conference automatically qualify for the super rugby finals, the next three wild card teams qualify on the basis of the log points they have earned in their pools.

So then the rankings are determined according to which country won the Rugby Championship, who came second etc.

Team ranked 3-6 will play knock out, and then the two winners will play semi finals against the top two ranked teams and then finals.

This way travel is greatly reduced and expenses.

Maybe if say a PI team was based in Townsville or even base them in the SE Brisbane area or Gold Coast (initially) it would help.
I don't think Australia can sustain 8 teams as per the model. 3 teams from Sydney would be a stretch - 2 max. would be the way to go.
Then have the other one from the Central Coast / Newcastle. That might work.

Also according to the number the revenue per game will increase from about 550 000 dollars to over 800 000 dollars, so theoretically teams will be able to afford to pay bigger salaries.

Linebreaker wrote:Maybe if say a PI team was based in Townsville or even base them in the SE Brisbane area or Gold Coast (initially) it would help.
I don't think Australia can sustain 8 teams as per the model. 3 teams from Sydney would be a stretch - 2 max. would be the way to go.
Then have the other one from the Central Coast / Newcastle. That might work.

i am sure if this model is implemented the ARU will allow the new teams to work on the same basis as the Rebels, allow them more foreigners at the beginning.

Even if it takes an initial period of four years to develop those teams into competitive teams it will create more public awareness and more youngsters will see a profession in rugby union.

The key would be to get through those first couple of seasons financially unscathed so to speak. We tried it before and failed - so there would have to be a better plan for marketing the competition and boost attendances (which were very poor) as well as significant Federal grants - most likely from a Liberal Gvt.

The thing to remember now is that Sydney (4.7 million) already has 9 NRL teams, 2 AFL and 2 A-League teams + the Tahs.

We have more sport/sq. km coming out of our ears than any other place on earth! (just about)

Even a city like London has what... 6 max Premier League and say another 4 (incl. Watford) Championship football teams, Sarries, Quins, Wasps, LI, LW and London Broncos but has more than twice the population in the greater metro area than Sydney.

Biltong wrote:Also according to the number the revenue per game will increase from about 550 000 dollars to over 800 000 dollars, so theoretically teams will be able to afford to pay bigger salaries.

How do they make that out?

Not sure mate, I got it from the document.

It is theoretically.

Great read Biltong!

I have problems with the current system (two random teams never get to play your team) and the travel schedule for the players. I have to admit that the conference games provided much of the highlights for me in last year's comp and then obviously the finals. This seems to be maximising those audiences for the local derbies and cutting down on the gruelling travel schedule.

There seems to be a clear structure to club or provincial teams, then the finals we like to see. I find it interesting that the RC has a bearing on the home finals which provides the final structure. They seem to be looking at things from the top down and seeing how they can have successful test teams and financially support their home grown competition. What I didn't get was the expansion into the Asian and American competitions. Personally having the finals in a neutral setting in a country like Japan or the US and placing a greater emphasis on the broadcasting rights than selling premium priced tickets would be a good move.

But overall this proposal is very encouraging.

a) they recognise the current system has big flaws

b) it gives meaning to the domestic competitions and attracts larger crowds because it promotes provincial rivalries rather than international ones.

c) players with families spend more time at home and players also have a greater incentive not to move offshore.

The big problem is it waters down the quality of the competition. As well as that I'm not sure TV companies would be overly interested in it, especially foreign ones.

Not quite sure about watering down. The tv friendliest games are the ones with the biggest rivalries and those are the local derbies. They tend to attract the biggest crowds.

The finals pits only the top teams against other international teams. Not the highlanders vs the force, the kings against the brumbies, the cheetahs against the rebels. Those top teams facing off is extremely tv friendly.

Let's face it. The current system only heats up at the end with teams facing do or die matches. It's an endurance comp not a one off sprint race. This seems a fair way to pit the best teams against one another and that's what people ultimately want to see.

I would love this format to be used.

Firstly you get give the Currie Cup importance, it isn't just our doemstic competition it is the life blood of South African rugby, it is the oldest provincial compeition and after after many years of being shifted to the side due to the ever lengthening Super Rugby competition if it can gain it's rightfull place in the world of rugby I will be a happy man.

From a financail point of view, we will now have 8 provinces beiing able to retain their talent, and that will ensure that we have 8 compeititve teams which will invariably increase the intensity of our Currie Cup.

There will be no easy games and the men will be seperated from the boys.

Apart from that you should have your best players spread over more teams rather than having a few teams swallow up all the best players in one position.

Wouldn't it be nice to see our top 8 flyhalves represent 8 teams rather than 3?

New Zealand will benefit in the same manner as South Africa.

Australia might take a while to have 8 strong teams, but this is what they need. Financially they can't sustain a domestic compeition without Super Rugby and this way gives them what they want, a sustainable competition and SA and NZ get what they want, an impoprtance to their domestic comp.

The Champions league or what ever you would want to call that is in my opinion not yet the best solution in the way it is presented here.

I would prefer the top two teams go through to a round robin,whereby you play the four teams (2 in each other conference) in a single round robin that will last only 4 weeks, and then there will just be a grand final.

Your conference rounds will be 14 weeks, next stage 4 weeks and a final, in total 19 weeks.

It should be a magnificent tournament.

I don't agree with it being TV friendly. Super rugby was about getting the best players in the southern hemisphere playing against each other in a quality tournament. The quality has already been effected with the expansion and all the players going to France and Japan.


Now, maybe in each individual country there could be as much enthusiasm about local matches but outside that country there wouldn't be too much viewers wanting to see it. In that regard it would suit South Africa fine because they've the bigger population. I'm not sure if it would be good for NZ or Australia. It could be but I have doubts about it.


There would be interest in the finals but would there be enough finals matches to sustain the interest?


I can see the benefits but I can also see TV companies not very keen.

Profitius, I agree with you in regards to the fact that the local derbies won't attract too many foreigners.

But think about this.

The total market currently is less than 100 mijllion people in SA, OZ and NZ

Figures show that SA provides 50 % of the viewer numbers.

We a,so bring in the most broadcasting revenue, and it is split equally amongst the three nations, so even if Australia and New Zealand don't bring in the numbers, Soouth Africa will.

And even if the percentage of viewers of other countries is low, lets say 1% in rugby loving countries, you will still see a huge increase in revenue, even if the other broadcasters pay cheaper rates to air the maches.

As I suggested in my above post, by tweaking the Championship round slightly you can increase those numbers of matches significantly without having to lengthen the competition by much.

Maybe an Australian conference could get to 8 by having a couple of Pacific island teams and maybe one super franchise from Japan.

I like the idea as well. The downside for me is I believe the current format, and even more the previous format, where the 3 countries have regular contact with eachother through the season keeps the overall SH rugby quality higher.

A season of primarily local debies keeps the opposition in the cold about where they are at relatively, from a playing sense and it could lead to substandard performances at semi time. Plus watering our 5 sides down to 8 sides logically weakens them but also lifts the second tier of players so is good in that sense. I think we'll be stronger as a result.

Perhaps each country could determine how many it has and provide two at the end for the playoffs regardless, adjusting their domestic season accordingly with one more round, byes etc.

Plus the Pacific Islands team being included in either the Oz or NZ 8 would be an excellent idea.

Just get the feeling the actual winner of the eventual final isnt truly reflective of all the sxv teams- most sides not even having played them, no matter who it is.

Good points raised there Biltong. But one thing confuses me. If the vast majority of the matches are going to be between teams from the same country, why would SA agree to share their TV money?

profitius wrote:Good points raised there Biltong. But one thing confuses me. If the vast majority of the matches are going to be between teams from the same country, why would SA agree to share their TV money?

that my friend has been a question I have been asking muself for some time now.

I suppose it is a strength in numbers thing, the SH against the NH.

I don't rightfully know, why do England and France share with the other nations?

Taylorman wrote:I like the idea as well. The downside for me is I believe the current format, and even more the previous format, where the 3 countries have regular contact with eachother through the season keeps the overall SH rugby quality higher.

A season of primarily local debies keeps the opposition in the cold about where they are at relatively, from a playing sense and it could lead to substandard performances at semi time. Plus watering our 5 sides down to 8 sides logically weakens them but also lifts the second tier of players so is good in that sense. I think we'll be stronger as a result.

Perhaps each country could determine how many it has and provide two at the end for the playoffs regardless, adjusting their domestic season accordingly with one more round, byes etc.

Plus the Pacific Islands team being included in either the Oz or NZ 8 would be an excellent idea.

Just get the feeling the actual winner of the eventual final isnt truly reflective of all the sxv teams- most sides not even having played them, no matter who it is.

taylorman, I doubt the quality of the champions league portion will be affected, firstly the top teams have all contracted their players for a few years, so they won't immediately be spread thinner (except for perhaps the Nz conference, not sure how the central contracting works exactly)

Whilst the new teams build (they are unlikely to qualify for the next stage) it immediately opens up an additional three squads for players to remain in SA, OZ and NZ, because there are now more "job" opportunities.

This will mean that within but a few years instead kf having been paying only 160 players in each country, we will have created a group of 250 well payed professionals in each country.

As I suggested above, I think the Champions league portion should be tweaked.

If you have yoour top two teams playing four matches instead of just semi and final, you still get an exposure of 4 matches (instead of the current 8) and it will be against the top 4 teams of the other two countries, which still is a strong measue of how strong your domestic rugby is.

Remember currently out of the 8 cross conference matches you play, there are 3-4 matches against weaker teams, which is no way lf measuring your best against their best anyway.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Maybe an Australian conference could get to 8 by having a couple of Pacific island teams and maybe one super franchise from Japan.

A PI franchise based in Oz would be better than the Japanese team option... unless they would want to live down here.
It has to be a full time squad - physically based here - otherwise the travel dilemma would re-occur in our intra-national competition.
8 hours (each way) to Tokyo would be too much travelling. Many PI's already live here so it would be relatively easy to band them together into a fighting force.

Biltong wrote:

profitius wrote:Good points raised there Biltong. But one thing confuses me. If the vast majority of the matches are going to be between teams from the same country, why would SA agree to share their TV money?

that my friend has been a question I have been asking muself for some time now.

I suppose it is a strength in numbers thing, the SH against the NH.

I don't rightfully know, why do England and France share with the other nations?

Yesterday English viewers were tuned into the biggest game of the HEC season so far when Munster (Ireland) took on Clermont (France). No English team were playing. Before that they got to see Leinster (Ireland) vs Biarritz (France). Its the best teams and biggest matches that attract most viewers so English clubs don't have a right to claim all English fans IMO. Fans from all over the world watch champions league soccer but all the money goes to the big European clubs.

In super rugby, as it is the teams are playing each other all year round. South Africans pay to watch super rugby and so the money is rightfully split between the 3 teams. South African rugby benefits too from the SA fans because if there was no super rugby then SA would be getting less too. I think thats a valid point that the Australian and New Zealand can put forward.

The new proposals are strange. Its like having a playoff between the top French, English and Rabo sides at the end of the year with the money from each league split 3 ways. In that scenario the French wouldn't be too happy and rightfully so because I don't think they'd be watching too much of the Rabo.

profitius wrote: Its like having a playoff between the top French, English and Rabo sides at the end of the year with the money from each league split 3 ways.

Good idea.

But, but... that means the Cape Crusaders may never ever see their beloved team again!!

I dont get why TV companies would be nervy about this. Market the matches right and the location doesnt matter. look at the Champions League. Or Vegas boxing. Or NFL, or freaking WWE!!