The End of Super Rugby

From 2016 SA are threatening to withdraw from Super Rugby unless the can field 6 sides.The corollary for this would be a Super 18 6 sides each conference.Or the old chestnuts SA sides playing in Europe and a separate ANZAC conference or a two tier Super season.The idea means if logically
concluded,more games,spreading the product even thinner etc.4Ns apparently is not effected thoughts anyone?

SA rugby has always seemed strong enough to me to just concern it's self with itself. If they did go it alone, maybe to increase the amount of games in the ANZAC season, the Aus/NZ powers that be would look to involve/create PI/Argie team to fill the gap?

I think Super Rugby in some form is there for the long haul. It has continued to expand from Super 10 to Super 12 to Super 14 to just totally Super Rugby. The next evolution would be Super Duper Rugby?

I think one of our South African friends should explain the Byzantine politics of their Rugby. But from an outside perspective, it seems a problem of their own making.

Doc, SA sport is influenced heavily by politics. The traditional five poewer houses of SA rugby, Lions (Transvaal), Bulls (Northern Transvaal), Stormers (Western Province) and Cheetahs (Freestate) was always going to be the five Super Rugby Unions as they have been the traditional strong Provinces in SA.

However politics demanded a representation from the greater Eastern Cape as it has the biggest number of non white players.

Transformation in sport is a difficult thing to establish whilst you are trying to be competitive as well, it isnt like business where you can fast track previously disadvantaged people whilst the cogs of the corporate machine is still turning by virtue of 20 000 other employees


Sport relies on success to sustain itself.

Ultimately SARU made promises to the Eatern Cape as early as 2006 and tried to appease the acheeky Watson's of this world.

Unfortunately contracts were negotiated and the Melbourne Rebels won the 15th Franchise and the kings had to wait for the next negotiations.

Cheeky Watson and his chronies used politics as their tool to force SARU's hand as they were no longer prepared to wait.

So , if you look at this scenario, SANZAR can't be bothered about the challenges faced by South African sport and politics, theiraim is to generate a sustainable platform for professional rugby.

This puts everyone at odds with their different endgoals. Currently there is not enough money for Australia and New Zealand to entertain a sixth team in their conferences and therefor this thing has come to a head.

For all intent and purposes it does not really matter whether they all want the same thing, it now matters that SARU has little choice but to accommodate the Kings into a premier competition.

Hence the thoughts of going at it alone.

Hard to understand the (over) expansion of Australian involvement in super rugby. Since the days of Super Six rugby, NZ have added just two franchises, whilst Australia have added largely manufactured and imported teams in Perth, Melbourne, ACT.

One of those added NZ sides, the chiefs have now been finalists three times and won it once. Hard to imagine that feat being repeated by the Force or Rebels. And before someone jumps down my throat to mention the Brumbies, recall that the Brumbies were manufactured by borrowing most of the Wallabies from other Ozzie franchises and at the time the other Supet Rugby franchises couldn't buy a win.

GE, but the point is participation and building an inhouse competition. NOt every team is going to win the competition.

Thus far ten teams have qualified for the play offs in history. That in my view is great, it means that at least you give yourself a shot if you make the play offs.

It isn't always just about winning the trophy, other matters are more important.

I'm not sure the Force or the Rebels are adding much to be fair. Australian rugby is stretched by over-representation in super rugby and hence have the weakest conference as a consequence. The recent Lions loss shows the dire state of Aussie rugby and their lack of depth. Rather than stretching themselves with franchises importing such northern outcasts as Danny revolving door Cipriani, they should consolidate with perhaps four sides and construct themselves a decent regional club competition.

South Africa have shown they sufficient depth and infrastructure and most importantly fan base to genuinely constitute natural growth - the turn out, atmosphere and quality of the Kings v Lions relegation match was just an awesome spectacle. I thought superior to any of the Lions tests on both quality and atmosphere.

I'm trying to imagine the sorry state of a relegation match between North Harbour and Taranaki for example or Tasmania and Fremantle.

We seem to get this every time super rugby is renegotiated. I'm guessing that there will be 6 SA teams. Aren't there three options on the table? It's more a question of where the money goes and how the format works.

I think there is need to expand into Asia/North America and support Argentina. It's not altruistic. I think NZ and Australia need additional funding. They are losing the battle to League and AFL is rising, even in NZ. Money from bigger markets would make the game more sustainable. My understanding is this may put the TV rights up near the AFL, if they get it right.

I am a bit gutted that three more high profile Wellington boys from top school 15's are off to rugby league at the end of the year (albeit they have league backgrounds). They are following a well worn path to the Melbourne storm. Nelson Asofa-Solomona is probably the biggest loss. He is a monster, 17 years old, over 2m tall, 120kg and Australasian junior champion in Discus (record holder) and shot. Would have played for NZ schools side last year but for the fact he was year 12 (only year 13 students are eligible in NZ).

Strange that SA is throwing its toys out of the pram on this one simply because they have the money and infrastructure to support six teams, therefore they want to have them.
 
As has been pointed out, the Rebels show the difficulties in starting up a new franchise. Perhaps SA should have as many teams as they like provided that only 2 get to make the playoffs as usual.

blackcanelion wrote:We seem to get this every time super rugby is renegotiated. I'm guessing that there will be 6 SA teams. Aren't there three options on the table? It's more a question of where the money goes and how the format works.

I think there is need to expand into Asia/North America and support Argentina. It's not altruistic. I think NZ and Australia need additional funding. They are losing the battle to League and AFL is rising, even in NZ. Money from bigger markets would make the game more sustainable. My understanding is this may put the TV rights up near the AFL, if they get it right.

I am a bit gutted that three more high profile Wellington boys from top school 15's are off to rugby league at the end of the year (albeit they have league backgrounds). They are following a well worn path to the Melbourne storm. Nelson Asofa-Solomona is probably the biggest loss. He is a monster, 17 years old, over 2m tall, 120kg and Australasian junior champion in Discus (record holder) and shot. Would have played for NZ schools side last year but for the fact he was year 12 (only year 13 students are eligible in NZ).

Yes and in return we'll get Benji Marshall (eventually). Not a great swap.

Getting a Japanese franchise into super rugby is the smart money. That way players going to Japan like Kaino and Kahui could still be eligible (potentially) for AB selection without changing the rules (much)

Benji's just returning to union. He was contracted by the Tigers when he was on a touch/rugby tour in Australia, brought over to Keebra Park School at the age of 15. Keebra is one of Ausytalia's top league schools that feeds the Tigers. It takes on Kiwi union students on scholarships every year.

They could just try contracting Warriors players. At least 4 of the backline on Sunday were union converts.

Agree about the Japanese idea.

Yep, if Japan ran a conference with the top side eligible for super rugby in the following year the interest would go through the roof. As would the money. It could bank roll SANZAR and aid retention massively. It would also weaken the NH clubs and potentially solve some of their national issues. Especially France and Wales.

George Carlin wrote:Strange that SA is throwing its toys out of the pram on this one simply because they have the money and infrastructure to support six teams, therefore they want to have them.
 
As has been pointed out, the Rebels show the difficulties in starting up a new franchise. Perhaps SA should have as many teams as they like provided that only 2 get to make the playoffs as usual.

I think you are being a bit unfair there George.

South Africa is bringing most of the money to the table. They unfortunately have political pressure to include the Kings.

The problem with keeping only five teams is that one other must go, the Lions rugby union has a proud history in SA, one of the top provinces as far as producing springboks. You can't simply throw it away because ARU and NZRU doesn't want to play ball.

It is important for SA to focus on how to improve their situation for a number of reasons.

1. If we can't get a sixth team we are cowtailing to the Politicians and the other two unions.
2. Is there a better use of our funds if we go on our own?
3. The development of our professional rugby system will halt if we don't find a way to grow.
4. Why keep on losing players at young ages to overseas countries simply because we can't provide enough teams and opportunities for our own players?
5. We have 14 provinces, we need to put a system together that can make as many of these teams financially viable which is necessary to grow rugby in SA.

Currently we have space for only 5 professional teams, firstly because we share our markets revenue, we are losing players because we only have five teams, by virtue of retaining all our revenue we have more scope for growth. Don't forget rugby is but a small sport when considering the population of SA, currently I doubt more than 25% of our population even follows rugby. So we have HUGE growth potential.

I was watching the Craven week under 16 highlights this weekend, there were 18 teams, SA had 16 and Zimbabwe and Namibia had a team as well, the quality of our schoolboy rugby is immense. Where do these kids go?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Yep, if Japan ran a conference with the top side eligible for super rugby in the following year the interest would go through the roof. As would the money. It could bank roll SANZAR and aid retention massively. It would also weaken the NH clubs and potentially solve some of their national issues. Especially France and Wales.

Japan is not ready as a market. I doubt you will get much in form of finance for broadcasting there, and the crowds who rock up at games are often less than 5000. Big corporate companies finance their individual teams at a loss.

It was best when it was the Super 12. Since then it has expanded while a large percentage of top SH players are now in Europe. The irony is that the heineken cup is going to be smaller.


The South Africans look like they've backed themselves into a corner here.

profitius wrote:It was best when it was the Super 12. Since then it has expanded while a large percentage of top SH players are now in Europe. The irony is that the heineken cup is going to be smaller.


The South Africans look like they've backed themselves into a corner here.

It is a risk worth taking. If the other two nations don't want to play ball, I would like us to go on our own again. We have a lot of work ahead of us to ensure we have more professional teams.

Biltong wrote:

profitius wrote:It was best when it was the Super 12. Since then it has expanded while a large percentage of top SH players are now in Europe. The irony is that the heineken cup is going to be smaller.


The South Africans look like they've backed themselves into a corner here.

It is a risk worth taking. If the other two nations don't want to play ball, I would like us to go on our own again. We have a lot of work ahead of us to ensure we have more professional teams.

This is simillar to the HC debate as the SARU are giving the money to the other two unions which are keeping them afloat as unions.

But the differences which i see as bigger issues is not involved in the European debate.

1.  SA get nearly half of those attending S15 games.
2. Their fans have to watch games in the morning, some of which are Friday morning when they are at work.
3. They are travelling half way around the world playing teams.
4. Their union is restricted by how many teams they can have run professionally.  (In europe it is how many teams at the top table but the bread and butter league can be as big or small as they like)


They along with France and England have the ability to fund 12-20 good funded teams.  NZ has the playing numbers but not the finance.

SA is losing players not because they can't afford them akin to NZ but because they only have the same number of places as NZ.  As much as players love the currie cup they would rather play for weaker european teans and play in the HC/Amlin then be stuck in the currie cup never to get a shot at the big time.

Surely a solution is you have two leagues with the top 4 teams go into cup and next 4 to sheild.
That way if SA want 10 teams and two for Argentina they can. (Both argintine teams could play all their games at home and then away or break it into blocks.  The SA teams could play the two games away over two weekends.

AUS and NZ could keep their 10.

Brendan wrote:

Biltong wrote:

profitius wrote:It was best when it was the Super 12. Since then it has expanded while a large percentage of top SH players are now in Europe. The irony is that the heineken cup is going to be smaller.


The South Africans look like they've backed themselves into a corner here.

It is a risk worth taking. If the other two nations don't want to play ball, I would like us to go on our own again. We have a lot of work ahead of us to ensure we have more professional teams.

This is simillar to the HC debate as the SARU are giving the money to the other two unions which are keeping them afloat as unions.

But the differences which i see as bigger issues is not involved in the European debate.

1.  SA get nearly half of those attending S15 games.
2. Their fans have to watch games in the morning, some of which are Friday morning when they are at work.
3. They are travelling half way around the world playing teams.
4. Their union is restricted by how many teams they can have run professionally.  (In europe it is how many teams at the top table but the bread and butter league can be as big or small as they like)


They along with France and England have the ability to fund 12-20 good funded teams.  NZ has the playing numbers but not the finance.

SA is losing players not because they can't afford them akin to NZ but because they only have the same number of places as NZ.  As much as players love the currie cup they would rather play for weaker european teans and play in the HC/Amlin then be stuck in the currie cup never to get a shot at the big time.

Surely a solution is you have two leagues with the top 4 teams go into cup and next 4 to sheild.
That way if SA want 10 teams and two for Argentina they can. (Both argintine teams could play all their games at home and then away or break it into blocks.  The SA teams could play the two games away over two weekends.

AUS and NZ could keep their 10.

Very astute there Brendan, I agree with you completely.

Surely it is a case of not ONE Country dictating to arguably the best Rugby organization currently available Sanzar.IF SA get there way you have more games played,player burnout etc.
At the start of the season the Kings were laughed at but have done no worse than the Lions or Cheetahs over the last few seasons.To have what amounts to 5 lame ducks in a completion
is a bit much.
Cash and Politics rule and no doubt a compromise will be reached just competing without winning.May be fine in theory but dis heartening to fans of the losers and eventually if
SA leave Super Rugby.SA will leave the 4Ns at some point and that will be tragedy.

Disagree with you EMack.

Firstly there is a solution, but SANZAR has to see it. Closed conferences where each country has the autonomy within sper Rugby to have as many teams as they want, if you have more teams in your conference you just start earlier. This way every country can use their premier domestic competition as the prelude to the play offs.

Not restraint on any country to develop their domestic rugby the way they want to.

SA will never leave the 4 nations.

It is already being handled separately to Super Rugby.

The problem has never been the 4 nations, it has always been Super Rugby, it is trying to be all things to all three countries and simply cannot, we all have different needs that must somehow be accommodated.

Would there be enough interest in SA to have a 12/14 team home league with the top 6 teams playing in a HC style comp against the ENG/FRA?

I don't think so broadlandboy.

The problem is the systems in Europe is set, and I personally wouldn't want to see it.

Like with the Craven Week, they could include Zimbabwe, Namibia maybe even Kenya or Madigascar (we've all seen the total rugby video) which gives them the potential to develop the African market for their gain. SA rugby needs to look after No.1, because as pointed out they are bleeding players to European teams.

Coleman, Zim and Namibia used to be part of the Currie cup, then Namibia was part of the Vodacom Cup, Zimbabwe now only takes part in Craven week and Namibia has pulled out of Vodacom this year.

These countries have no money to send a team to SA, unfortunately we can't finance them as well, we are keen to accommodate them into our domestic rugby as it has been for many years, but they need to finance themselves at least.

I think one of the great things about the european competitions are you often face new teams each year.  In S15 it gets a bit stale.

AUS is going to struggle with getting players till they sort out a system simillar to the other countries with regions.  S15 is holding back Aus for short term gains.

If countries can afford to have a fully professional league then the IRB should encourage it.  Where they can't the IRB should push for joint ventures.

If SA had a 12 team league of which 5% where from other african countries that would be 40 x 12 x 5% = 24 players which would improve other countries.  Africa is growing in wealth esp west africa which are built for rugby.

With the IRB pushing leagues controlled by unions the following happen
1. It stops any break aways as the players and markets are sown up.
2. There is more players from different regions seeing rugby as a professional game. The problem now is that to make it outside of the 6N S15 countries you have to either move and hope you make it or just be luck and get spotted.
3. It allows countries to only blame themselves if they aren't progressing.

There is talk of opening up the USA/Canada/Japan market as if it is easy.  As has been shown in italy it takes time to improve a team and build a base.  Just beacuse places have a S15 team doesn't mean 1000s will line up to watch them play.  

I think we can have a sizable number of regions added simillar to the italian model.  As italy and scotland have shown you only need to teams.  Yes it costs money but long term it pays off.  I think Nambia could support fan wise at least one fultime team.  Japan has its own league it just needs it clubs to play a couple of games a year at a higher level.

Since Russia set up their league we are seeing more russians get into the Rabo/prem/t14 surely that shows the system helps everyone.

Biltong wrote:Coleman, Zim and Namibia used to be part of the Currie cup, then Namibia was part of the Vodacom Cup, Zimbabwe now only takes part in Craven week and Namibia has pulled out of Vodacom this year.

These countries have no money to send a team to SA, unfortunately we can't finance them as well, we are keen to accommodate them into our domestic rugby as it has been for many years, but they need to finance themselves at least.

To be fair if SA went alone it would be pennies they'd have to give to Namibia to run one or team teams compared to what they are handing over to S15.

40 players at 250k rand per player would cover a team for Nambia. Surely the savings in travel would more then cover that and the World gets national side that would imrove drastically.

Brendan wrote:

Biltong wrote:Coleman, Zim and Namibia used to be part of the Currie cup, then Namibia was part of the Vodacom Cup, Zimbabwe now only takes part in Craven week and Namibia has pulled out of Vodacom this year.

These countries have no money to send a team to SA, unfortunately we can't finance them as well, we are keen to accommodate them into our domestic rugby as it has been for many years, but they need to finance themselves at least.

To be fair if SA went alone it would be pennies they'd have to give to Namibia to run one or team teams compared to what they are handing over to S15.

40 players at 250k rand per player would cover a team for Nambia.  Surely the savings in travel would more then cover that and the World gets national side that would imrove drastically.

Won't happen Brendan, you are talking of paying a team like Namibia 10 million Rand when we have provinces that are struggling to pay their players that amount.

If SA went alone i thought they would be on that. Either way even at a 100k rand a year would probably still allow the team to be professional.

If SA had the 10 teams what would the wage be. I know the currie cup attedance is about 18k which would increase if no S15.

Our entry level at Currie Cup is about R 50 000 salary per month.

There are currently 6 trams in the Premier division, not sure how much the First division players earn.

I suspect the Super Rugby players are over R 100 000 per month.

From memory SARU currently gets about R 80 million Per year for Currie Cup from Supersport, but that would increase if it gains its rightfull place as there won't ge Super rugby anymore.

Super Rugby revenue is much, much higher than Currie Cup from broadcasters.

I knoe the top two socce clucs in the PSL in SA signed a new deal for a couple of hundred million Rands, so there is money, just need to lan it.

Biltong wrote:Doc, SA sport is influenced heavily by politics. The traditional five poewer houses of SA rugby, Lions (Transvaal), Bulls (Northern Transvaal), Stormers (Western Province) and Cheetahs (Freestate) was always going to be the five Super Rugby Unions as they have been the traditional strong Provinces in SA.

However politics demanded a representation from the greater Eastern Cape as it has the biggest number of non white players.

Transformation in sport is a difficult thing to establish whilst you are trying to be competitive as well, it isnt like business where you can fast track previously disadvantaged people whilst the cogs of the corporate machine is still turning by virtue of 20 000 other employees


Sport relies on success to sustain itself.

Ultimately SARU made promises to the Eatern Cape as early as 2006 and tried to appease the acheeky Watson's of this world.

Unfortunately contracts were negotiated and the Melbourne Rebels won the 15th Franchise and the kings had to wait for the next negotiations.

Cheeky Watson and his chronies used politics as their tool to force SARU's hand as they were no longer prepared to wait.

So , if you look at this scenario, SANZAR can't be bothered about the challenges faced by South African sport and politics, theiraim is to generate a sustainable platform for professional rugby.

This puts everyone at odds with their different endgoals. Currently there is not enough money for Australia and New Zealand to entertain a sixth team in their conferences and therefor this thing has come to a head.

For all intent and purposes it does not really matter whether they all want the same thing, it now matters that SARU has little choice but to accommodate the Kings into a premier competition.

Hence the thoughts of going at it alone.

This [ed- very sad post [very sadly]says nothing about sport per se but everything you need to know about professionalism, sport politics, cartels and [the] restrictive practices which prevent the cream from rising to the top and to bar entry to competitive challengers.

It's almost the converse of sport.

In some ways transformation isn't a bad thing... it just depends how you look at it.

Whatever anyone says.... no african kid is going to get inspiration from Victor Matfield or Bakkies Botha smashing up the opposition.

SARU by promoting african players and franchises are widening their fan base, potentially increasing their sponsorships and opening up the game to millions of people who usually wouldn't go near the sport.

Rugby in SA is played by 2 races of people (White & Colored) who only make up 10-15MM people. SA is a country of 50MM people.  Ignoring the rest is loco.

But FA, it is our problem and not that of the ARU and NZRU, hence unless they allow closed conferences where SAa can add teams and appease the politicians it isn't going to work.

Well the Rebels should never have got the 5th Franchise in the first place.... NZ are at the limit with 5 teams, AUS probably 4.... SA it would be 6 IMO.

Thats what financially would have been the sensible thing to do as well as from a players numbers perspective.
But SA often gets out ranked in SANZAR decisions... AUS has too much weight, they are not an equal partner either in player numbers or financial strength and contributions.

Agree about Australia carrying too much weight, still cannot figure out why though.

John O'neill was a master politician...

I would have thought the conference system was the first step towards allowing constituent unions the flexibility to structure their conferences how ever they liked.

What would NZ or ARU care as long as the play off criteria was met equally. Why not two teams each into the quarters and another one each into a play off for the final two spots?

Nominees for cross conference matches are currently a lottery, so why not allow the host union to nominate sides for those spots?

Seems like a nice level of autonomy versus integration with flexibility for all.

South Africa should be part of the European league to be fair. I think they are only 1 hour ahead of British time anyway, and the same as French time. Not only that but they are also on our continent. The flight times are also a few hours less.

It's a pity they couldn't do more of a domestic league, or maybe one with Argentina and play in the European Cup.

Beginning of the end for 'Super Rugby'. It was awesome back in the day but NH is where the action is now.

Argentina spoiled it.

Shifty wrote:South Africa should be part of the European league to be fair.  I think they are only 1 hour ahead of British time anyway, and the same as French time.  Not only that but they are also on our continent.   The flight times are also a few hours less.  

It's a pity they couldn't do more of a domestic league, or maybe one with Argentina and play in the European Cup.  

To be honest I wouldn't like SA in the European comp.

Firstly the season don't correlate. Playing in the cold in Europe is not something we do well at all, sure we will make a ton of money, but your season is congested, over burdened and confusing, nothing is ever done and dusted, play HC one weekend, then Aviva or Rabo the next week and then Six Nations the week after.

fa0019 wrote:Well the Rebels should never have got the 5th Franchise in the first place.... NZ are at the limit with 5 teams, AUS probably 4.... SA it would be 6 IMO.

Thats what financially would have been the sensible thing to do as well as from a players numbers perspective.
But SA often gets out ranked in SANZAR decisions... AUS has too much weight, they are not an equal partner either in player numbers or financial strength and contributions.

havnt really bothered with the politics of all this but this isnt purely because SA believe they should have 6 sides surely?

Theyve only ever had one winner and to date other than the Cheetahs huge improvement 3 of the sides remain cellar dwellers- Lions, Cheetahs and Kings.

All 5 of NZ's sides have made finals with (hopefully after this weekend) 3 winning it twice or more. Could we put out a 6th side? Easily. But probably not one capable of winning it easily. But we're not unique there.

If SA were to go to a NH comp it would drag them down I reckon. They play a similar style to the NH and would end up in that league, and the lesser contact with the faster NZ and Oz game would struggle in the top 3.

Taylorman wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Well the Rebels should never have got the 5th Franchise in the first place.... NZ are at the limit with 5 teams, AUS probably 4.... SA it would be 6 IMO.

Thats what financially would have been the sensible thing to do as well as from a players numbers perspective.
But SA often gets out ranked in SANZAR decisions... AUS has too much weight, they are not an equal partner either in player numbers or financial strength and contributions.

havnt really bothered with the politics of all this but this isnt purely because SA believe they should have 6 sides surely?

Theyve only ever had one winner and to date other than the Cheetahs huge improvement 3 of the sides remain cellar dwellers- Lions, Cheetahs and Kings.

All 5 of NZ's sides have made finals with (hopefully after this weekend) 3 winning it twice or more. Could we put out a 6th side? Easily. But probably not one capable of winning it easily. But we're not unique there.

If SA were to go to a NH comp it would drag them down I reckon. They play a similar style to the NH and would end up in that league, and the lesser contact with the faster NZ and Oz game would struggle in the top 3.

disagree with you taylorman.

It took SA a decade to adjust to the tougher travelling schedule compared to NZ and OZ.

Since the Super XIV we have been much more competitive.

In the 5 years of the Super XIV

Semi finalists.
NZ 10
SA 7
OZ 3

Winners
SA 3
NZ 2

Super XV
Qualifiers for play offs
SA 7
NZ 6
OZ 5

Winners
Oz 1
NZ 1

Since the conference system we have 4 teams with a better than 50% win rate in cross conference maches, more than OZ and NZ.

No matter how you cut it, we are very competitive and looking at who wins is looking at one team, compare what really matters, cross conference results.

As for not playing in the Super Rugby, why would we get weaker?

Familiarity breeds contempt, the less we play OZ and NZ the tougher they will find it to combat our physicality.

That said, I'd rather have us go on our own than join the NH.

Talyor NZ can't afford the 6th team, they have the players but no finance.

How is S15 v ITM viewed in NZ.

If SA could keep players they'd be fine. There are way more SA plsyers then Aus or NZ players in europe. Between Ulster and Sarries you'd have your sixth team.

Bil why not european competition. I don't buy into we would drag you down, as we just dont have players as good. Saying that the teams would make more in 6games then they do from S15 (the previous can't be verified but sounds good)

It isn't about dragging us down, Brendan, the seasons don't correlate, the weather is too cold, if we get in bed with Europe the absolute r@ping of our teams will escalate.

Our game can only evolve if we go on our own, if we play in the cold wet conditions of europe we will adapt the same tactics as most european teams.

Why get in bed with someone else if it didn't work wirh others?

They could play in one block in April-May. That works for both.

I am talking to folks from OZ on another site in regards to this, and it seems by way of their responses the best thing for SA is to pull out of Super XV, too many excuses and obstacles.

Biltong,so you wouldnt want SA teams to participate in a cross border comp?

Biltong wrote:I am talking to folks from OZ on another site in regards to this, and it seems by way of their responses the best thing for SA is to pull out of Super XV, too many excuses and obstacles.

I know in Aus rugby union is smaller but without a top to bottom system it isn't going to get any better. I know Aus is a big country but if each franchise had a league under it it would help. With the rising number POMs in Aus the level interest mudt have gone up. But until they build their base they will never produce enough players or fans to afford 5 teams.

They are in the top three in the world so why should thd ARU care akin to WRU. when they work out its broken they will be to far behind they'll miss a generation. Scotland and Italy will continue to improve as their top 100 players play at the top level.

My father in law always feels like AUS and NZ are brother who don't like each other but team up to take advantage of their cousin SA.

It is possible that heading into 2016 Aus could be facing 3 third places in the 4N, not getting out of their RWC group and still have 3 poor S15 teams. If that happened (and it is worse case) they might feel different about losing S15.

broadlandboy wrote:Biltong,so you wouldnt want SA teams to participate in a cross border comp?

Best solution is to have each country have their own leagues or Rabo type league with the top teams going into the old S8 style.

broadlandboy wrote:Biltong,so you wouldnt want SA teams to participate in a cross border comp?

not at the moment no. I think it is time SARU makes a break clean from any other domestic and club competitions and start working on developing rugby in SA, I wish I had the exact figures to give you a clearer picture.

We get on average roughly 24 000 per super rugby match (local derbies).

Our Currie Cup used to be 8 teams in the Premier division, if there is no Super Rugby but only Currie Cup, I suspect the spectator numbers could be higher than 24 000.

But working on that figure and taking the average cost of a rugbt ticket at R100, it means gate revenue per team for the season will be 24 000 X 7 x R100 = R 16 800 000, add to that the current revenue for Currie Cup from Supersport which is on the last signing 3 years ago about R 10 000 000 per team and you already have revenue without sponsorship or merchandising of R 26 800 000 per team.

This is ignoring all revenue SARU recieves from the Rugby Championship which is the cashcow for us.

Just based on thise figures if that was used for salaries you would be able to pay a player about R 800 000 per year.

That is a very good income in SA when you consider the average income for a middle class family is half of that.

If that is thebase where we can start from, it can only get better.

At the moment we only provide professional players with 5 franchises to play for, this way we can move to 8 teams and it will help to keep the youngsters in SA due to more opportunities.

We must get our house in order, let's play other nations at test level and look after our domestic scene.

Brendan wrote:

Biltong wrote:I am talking to folks from OZ on another site in regards to this, and it seems by way of their responses the best thing for SA is to pull out of Super XV, too many excuses and obstacles.

I know in Aus rugby union is smaller but without a top to bottom system it isn't going to get any better.  I know Aus is a big country but if each franchise had a league under it it would help.  With the rising number POMs in Aus the level interest mudt have gone up.  But until they build their base they will never produce enough players or fans to afford 5 teams.

They are in the top three in the world so why should thd ARU care akin to WRU.  when they work out its broken they will be to far behind they'll miss a generation.  Scotland and Italy will continue to improve as their top 100 players play at the top level.

My father in law always feels like AUS and NZ are brother who don't like each other but team up to take advantage of their cousin SA.

It is possible that heading into 2016 Aus could be facing 3 third places in the 4N, not getting out of their RWC group and still have 3 poor S15 teams.  If that happened (and it is worse case) they might feel different about losing S15.  

The australians seems they are happy with the system as it stands now. They don't need to develop anything themselves and on the back of SA and NZ have a sustainable process. They all seem to beleive without Suoer XV their rugby has no future, and they keep insisting on growing a market in USA and Japan.

Niether are ready in my view.