Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

by **Biltong** Thu 08 Aug 2013, 11:35 am

SMH - Georgina Robinson wrote:The Australian Rugby Union is open to an overhaul of Super Rugby that would see more trans-Tasman derbies and up to two Argentinian teams included in the competition.

Super Rugby's governing body, SANZAR, is under pressure to include a sixth South African team in the competition from 2016 and believes the best way of doing so is to cut the current three-conference system down to two conferences that would not play each other until a finals series.

One conference would include the current Australian and New Zealand teams and the other would include six South African teams and up to two sides from Argentina.

ARU chief executive Bill Pulver would not commit to a preferred model on Thursday but said he supported the inclusion of Argentina, which is playing its second season in the Rugby Championship this year.

It is also understood that while Australia might have preferred to stay with the current three conference model during previous discussions, the prospect of less travel and more marketable derby-style matches between New Zealand and Australian sides has the ARU looking closely at the proposal.

Australian teams would play each other twice and all New Zealand teams once before meeting the top three or four teams from the eight-team South Africa-Argentina conference.

It is becoming less and less likely that Super Rugby in its current format will exist beyond the next Rugby World Cup.

Its new shape is expected to be decided on by the SANZAR nations and Argentina by the end of this year.

A further expansion including an Asian team, possibly Japan, is also on the cards. But Pulver said there was no plan to include a Pacific Islands-based franchise.

Also in the works for 2016 is a new international calendar that would see the June internationals window moved to July and Super Rugby finishing before that break.

The International Rugby Players' Association has been behind the push, with the SANZAR nations and England's Premiership Rugby clubs on board.

"I am very enthusiastic about the possibility of having that change," Pulver said. "Having a Test series take place in June is really quite inconvenient from a Super Rugby perspective. Having to break the competition for a month, particularly for those teams not in the finals series, is very disruptive."

Wallabies and Waratahs No.7 Michael Hooper also backed the move, saying it made sense to "clean up" the calendar.

"As Waratahs we had to break up for a couple of weeks, come back, play one game against the Reds," Hooper said. "It's difficult, while the main squad is training throughout that window you lose guys, guys come back, and it would just clean up the year. I think most players would be for that."

by **Biltong** Thu 08 Aug 2013, 11:39 am

I am trying to figure this one out.

If there are 5 Australian Franchises and Five New Zealand Franchises

Now if the Oz teams play each other twice that is 8 weeks, plus 1 game each against the NZ teams you have 13 weeks.

IF SA have 6 teams and Argentina 2

The SA teams play each other twice that is 10 weeks, plus both Argentina teams that is 12 weeks.

OK so there is one week rest extra. Call it for the travel.

How do they work Qualification out?

Makes little sense.

Either all the teams in a conference play each other once or home and away. Only way it can work.

It is good that the Tests in June move to July. This allows an extra 4 weeks for Domestic rugby.

So it will go - Super rugby - July tests - Rugby Championship - November tests.

by disneychilly Thu 08 Aug 2013, 11:39 am

Super 12 was the best format IMO. This has started to extract the michael a while ago now. Maybe that ANZAC split from SA and Argentina is the only way that everyone can get their team in.

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu 08 Aug 2013, 11:46 am

Sounds good to me but a lot of questions over the format. Good that we only play the Australian teams once but you can bet that Australia will want written into the deal that at least one of their teams makes the conference playoffs. How many teams are in the conference for NZ and Australia?

It cuts down the travel schedule and allows teams to manage their returning test players better and fits it into their domestic schedule. Or does it?

I'm happy to see Argentina get thought about and don't necessarily have a problem with Japan being involved.

The big question is how do the playoffs work and what happens to home advantage? Also how many teams will NZ and Australia have if SA and Argentina provide 8 (6+2). I wouldn't mind 4 from each and get rid of the Force and a team like the Highlanders though I imagine those fans might have an issue with that. You could introduce a relegation and promotion system built into the domestic competition (at least in NZ) to see who plays in the conference.

Moving the June tests to July makes sense and that gives better preparation for the RC instead of interrupting the Super calendar. When are you going to play the ITM and Currie Cups though?

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu 08 Aug 2013, 11:55 am

Sorry. Just re-read it. Australia have 5 teams and play each other twice and the NZ teams once. 13 games.

NZ does the reverse and also has 13 games.

Let's say the other conference plays each other twice. SA teams would play 14 games.

How many go through to the playoffs? Is home advantage based on points. Where are the domestic comps going to be played in SA and NZ? These are still my main preoccupations.

by **Biltong** Thu 08 Aug 2013, 11:58 am

They are talking about either a six team play off or 8 team.

It would make sense to have quarter finals

So top ranked team in Eastern conference vs 4th placed team in western conference, etc .

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 08 Aug 2013, 12:05 pm

Biltong wrote:I am trying to figure this one out.

If there are 5 Australian Franchises and Five New Zealand Franchises

Now if the Oz teams play each other twice that is 8 weeks, plus 1 game each against the NZ teams you have 13 weeks.

IF SA have 6 teams and Argentina 2

The SA teams play each other twice that is 10 weeks, plus both Argentina teams that is 12 weeks.

OK so there is one week rest extra. Call it for the travel.

How do they work Qualification out?

Makes little sense.

Either all the teams in a conference play each other once or home and away. Only way it can work.

It is good that the Tests in June move to July. This allows an extra 4 weeks for Domestic rugby.

So it will go - Super rugby - July tests - Rugby Championship - November tests.

What happens to the NH season,are we going to have to wait til October to start our competitions?

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu 08 Aug 2013, 12:07 pm

What happened to the proposal you talked about BB when you would have your domestic competitions at the beginning of the year and that would feed into the home conference finalists which would then feed into the Super playoffs? Australia could just play their Super teams to decide their finalists. Have home and away games and then points decide the finalists where top points decides home advantage.

That way you can manage your test players at the start of the year and get them hitting their peak as the year goes on.

by whocares Thu 08 Aug 2013, 12:11 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Biltong wrote:I am trying to figure this one out.

If there are 5 Australian Franchises and Five New Zealand Franchises

Now if the Oz teams play each other twice that is 8 weeks, plus 1 game each against the NZ teams you have 13 weeks.

IF SA have 6 teams and Argentina 2

The SA teams play each other twice that is 10 weeks, plus both Argentina teams that is 12 weeks.

OK so there is one week rest extra. Call it for the travel.

How do they work Qualification out?

Makes little sense.

Either all the teams in a conference play each other once or home and away. Only way it can work.

It is good that the Tests in June move to July. This allows an extra 4 weeks for Domestic rugby.

So it will go - Super rugby - July tests - Rugby Championship - November tests.

What happens to the NH season,are we going to have to wait til October to start our competitions?

I assume that the players holidays will be moved from july to mid june...but that would mean the players might be rusty for those tests.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 08 Aug 2013, 12:35 pm

whocares wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Biltong wrote:I am trying to figure this one out.

If there are 5 Australian Franchises and Five New Zealand Franchises

Now if the Oz teams play each other twice that is 8 weeks, plus 1 game each against the NZ teams you have 13 weeks.

IF SA have 6 teams and Argentina 2

The SA teams play each other twice that is 10 weeks, plus both Argentina teams that is 12 weeks.

OK so there is one week rest extra. Call it for the travel.

How do they work Qualification out?

Makes little sense.

Either all the teams in a conference play each other once or home and away. Only way it can work.

It is good that the Tests in June move to July. This allows an extra 4 weeks for Domestic rugby.

So it will go - Super rugby - July tests - Rugby Championship - November tests.

What happens to the NH season,are we going to have to wait til October to start our competitions?

I assume that the players holidays will be moved from july to mid june...but that would mean the players might be rusty for those tests.

I don't think that would happen as they'd have to skip preseason and go straight into full internationals.

by **Biltong** Thu 08 Aug 2013, 1:29 pm

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:What happened to the proposal you talked about BB when you would have your domestic competitions at the beginning of the year and that would feed into the home conference finalists which would then feed into the Super playoffs? Australia could just play their Super teams to decide their finalists. Have home and away games and then points decide the finalists where top points decides home advantage.

That way you can manage your test players at the start of the year and get them hitting their peak as the year goes on.

I prefer my way Kia, but then I am not sitting on the board of SANZAR.

by fa0019 Thu 08 Aug 2013, 1:54 pm

but does it make more money for the unions either by savings or additional revenue???? yes, then it will happen. No,...... next!!!

by Jenifer McLadyboy Thu 08 Aug 2013, 2:39 pm

You lads down south are obsessed with playing 1 comp and finishing it before moving on to the next one.

Look at our season

5 x weeks of Rabo
2 x weeks of HC
2 x weeks of Rabo
3 x weeks of Intl
2 x weeks of Rabo
2 x weeks of HC
3 x weeks of Rabo
2 x weeks of HC
7 week period of 5 x 6N games with 4 games of Rabo mixed in.
2 x weeks of Rabo
HC QF
2 x weeks of Rabo
HC SF
1 week of Rabo
Rabo SF
HC Final
Rabo Final
June Intls.

English comp is an exact mirror and the French starts 2 or 3 weeks earlier and finishes a week later.

Works out very well from a spectators pov. Never boring.

Players may not be AS happy but it is the same for all of them.

There are breaks in the club comp in November for 2 weeks. January for 2 weeks and March for 2 weeks.

by **Biltong** Thu 08 Aug 2013, 2:52 pm

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:You lads down south are obsessed with playing 1 comp and finishing it before moving on to the next one.

Look at our season

5 x weeks of Rabo
2 x weeks of HC
2 x weeks of Rabo
3 x weeks of Intl
2 x weeks of Rabo
2 x weeks of HC
3 x weeks of Rabo
2 x weeks of HC
7 week period of 5 x 6N games with 4 games of Rabo mixed in.
2 x weeks of Rabo
HC QF
2 x weeks of Rabo
HC SF
1 week of Rabo
Rabo SF
HC Final
Rabo Final
June Intls.

English comp is an exact mirror and the French starts 2 or 3 weeks earlier and finishes a week later.

Works out very well from a spectators pov. Never boring.

Players may not be AS happy but it is the same for all of them.

There are breaks in the club comp in November for 2 weeks. January for 2 weeks and March for 2 weeks.

Reminds me of a chameleon in a smartie box

by Jenifer McLadyboy Thu 08 Aug 2013, 2:54 pm

You should try it. It is possible to contain more than one thing in your head at the same time. Just takes practise.

by **Biltong** Thu 08 Aug 2013, 2:59 pm

Nah, I am a simple man, eat my food the same way, first the meat, then put the vegetables in the bin.

by fa0019 Thu 08 Aug 2013, 3:00 pm

AUS is the big problem. It has no domestic professional league.

You can't have the Currie Cup run with Super rugby as it would mean AUS squads would be sitting around for weeks on end playing no rugby.

In SA we have the Vodacom cup (3rd tier) play in line with Super Rugby. Once this is over generally speaking the best of the Vodacom cup squad and the non test match squad from SR teams go into the Currie Cup.

by **Biltong** Thu 08 Aug 2013, 3:08 pm

Super rugby is too long, and SANZAR is just making it more complicated than it should be.

The whole reason why SANZAR is pushing local derbies is because Australia won't otherwise have local derbies.

If you want authenticity and credibility in Super Rugby every one must play everyone else.

Such as the Super 14 and Super 12.

So the smost straight forward solution will be just give SA their 6th team and have a Super sixteen that will run 15 rounds and then semi finals and final.

But due to the derby requirement they came up with this convoluted conference system. I suspect the other reason for the conference sstem is the possibility of bringing in more conferences.

Why we must shack up with Argentina makes no sense to me, they don't even have one pro team at the moment, this is just a way for OZ to get what they really want, they get to poay an ANZAC tournament, with us on the other side still subsidising their income.

If SARU falls for this BS, then they must without doubt be the most ignorant fools on the planet.

I say F$&(; them all let's go our own way.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 08 Aug 2013, 4:05 pm

Biltong wrote:Super rugby is too long, and SANZAR is just making it more complicated than it should be.

The whole reason why SANZAR is pushing local derbies is because Australia won't otherwise have local derbies.

If you want authenticity and credibility in Super Rugby every one must play everyone else.

Such as the Super 14 and Super 12.

So the smost straight forward solution will be just give SA their 6th team and have a Super sixteen that will run 15 rounds and then semi finals and final.

But due to the derby requirement they came up with this convoluted conference system. I suspect the other reason for the conference sstem is the possibility of bringing in more conferences.

Why we must shack up with Argentina makes no sense to me, they don't even have one pro team at the moment, this is just a way for OZ to get what they really want, they get to poay an ANZAC tournament, with us on the other side still subsidising their income.

If SARU falls for this BS, then they must without doubt be the most ignorant fools on the planet.

I say F$&(; them all let's go our own way.

The Heineken Cup is an excellent competition and it doesn't have this element.Sometimes it means the winner of the comp isn't always the best team in it but the comp never gets stale as you don't see the same teams every year.

by **Biltong** Thu 08 Aug 2013, 4:10 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Biltong wrote:Super rugby is too long, and SANZAR is just making it more complicated than it should be.

The whole reason why SANZAR is pushing local derbies is because Australia won't otherwise have local derbies.

If you want authenticity and credibility in Super Rugby every one must play everyone else.

Such as the Super 14 and Super 12.

So the smost straight forward solution will be just give SA their 6th team and have a Super sixteen that will run 15 rounds and then semi finals and final.

But due to the derby requirement they came up with this convoluted conference system. I suspect the other reason for the conference sstem is the possibility of bringing in more conferences.

Why we must shack up with Argentina makes no sense to me, they don't even have one pro team at the moment, this is just a way for OZ to get what they really want, they get to poay an ANZAC tournament, with us on the other side still subsidising their income.

If SARU falls for this BS, then they must without doubt be the most ignorant fools on the planet.

I say F$&(; them all let's go our own way.
The Heineken Cup is an excellent competition and it doesn't have this element.Sometimes it means the winner of the comp isn't always the best team in it but the comp never gets stale as you don't see the same teams every year.

That's fine, but the Super rugby does not need to emulate the HC.

It has never tried to in the pat, and there is no need to start now.

The way I see it, the Super Rugby tournament was always about the best teams in the three nations competing against one another, you play all the teams which teaches you how to apadt to every possible different style of opponent, if you don't get to play the best opponents of each of the countries, why take part in it?

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 08 Aug 2013, 4:34 pm

Biltong wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Biltong wrote:Super rugby is too long, and SANZAR is just making it more complicated than it should be.

The whole reason why SANZAR is pushing local derbies is because Australia won't otherwise have local derbies.

If you want authenticity and credibility in Super Rugby every one must play everyone else.

Such as the Super 14 and Super 12.

So the smost straight forward solution will be just give SA their 6th team and have a Super sixteen that will run 15 rounds and then semi finals and final.

But due to the derby requirement they came up with this convoluted conference system. I suspect the other reason for the conference sstem is the possibility of bringing in more conferences.

Why we must shack up with Argentina makes no sense to me, they don't even have one pro team at the moment, this is just a way for OZ to get what they really want, they get to poay an ANZAC tournament, with us on the other side still subsidising their income.

If SARU falls for this BS, then they must without doubt be the most ignorant fools on the planet.

I say F$&(; them all let's go our own way.
The Heineken Cup is an excellent competition and it doesn't have this element.Sometimes it means the winner of the comp isn't always the best team in it but the comp never gets stale as you don't see the same teams every year.
That's fine, but the Super rugby does not need to emulate the HC.

It has never tried to in the pat, and there is no need to start now.

The way I see it, the Super Rugby tournament was always about the best teams in the three nations competing against one another, you play all the teams which teaches you how to apadt to every possible different style of opponent, if you don't get to play the best opponents of each of the countries, why take part in it?

It wouldn't have to emulate it,that's not the point.I'm just pointing out that you can have an authentic and credible competition without every team playing each other.

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu 08 Aug 2013, 5:13 pm

I think with this ever growing juggernaut he has a point BB. Maybe it's time to admit that we can't have so many teams playing one another. The only problem is in Europe, it's not a problem to have a draw for which teams go in which pools. But imagine you have a pool with the Highlanders, Bulls, Force and Sharks. Then another with the Chiefs, Reds, Blues and Stormers. The odd one out is going to get caned in the travel schedule.

Much smarter to play closer to home and then the top teams play one another at the end. The whole purpose of this proposal is to cut down on travel which makes a lot of sense. The problem is it's pretty rough around the edges in terms of format.

by **Biltong** Thu 08 Aug 2013, 5:23 pm

Kia, why would we want Argentina in our pool, when OZ and NZ get to play one another?

Then whoopee our two or three top teams get to play in a play off, how does that even become a fair comprtition when the money comes from us.

That is like saying, thanks for remaining in the comp so we can con our way into your money, your reward is you get to play us in a play off.

Absolute rubbish.

by **Biltong** Thu 08 Aug 2013, 5:24 pm

You either play everyone, or you split the conferences by country. The only reasonable way to go.

by 123456789 Thu 08 Aug 2013, 5:30 pm

Why not add two teams from the pacific Islands as well? Then the two conferences would be even.

Then have 9 rounds to determine positions in each conference and then split it in half so the top half in one play the top half in the other and the bottom half in one plays the bottom half in the other and then have an overall table. The top four in the top league play in a play-off to determine the winner, then you can have a lucrative grand-final which is what the TV companies want, it means there are local derbies and the best teams always play each other.

by kiakahaaotearoa Thu 08 Aug 2013, 5:33 pm

I'm not happy about Australia being in our conference either so I can see why you're not enthused about having Argentina. I don't much like the look of it but if you're going to keep increasing teams it's impossible to play one another home and away and then have finals afterwards. That's too much rugby.

Hopefully SARU put up a fight because I think there's a way to cut down on travel and to have local derbies that generate interest and then pit the top teams against one another. To pit all the teams against one another is just not feasible the number of teams there are.

12 is the best number to play home and away. 4 teams per country. But when you create a new team noone wants to miss out and go back to how it was.

by Jenifer McLadyboy Thu 08 Aug 2013, 6:10 pm

123456789 wrote:Why not add two teams from the pacific Islands as well? Then the two conferences would be even.

Reason 1. There is no money in the Islands

Reason 2. There is no potential audience in the Islands either for TV or at the gates.

Reason 3. The whole reason for splitting SA off is to cut down on travel so why add in teams from the opposite side of the planet?

by Brendan Thu 08 Aug 2013, 9:34 pm

There are 38 top teams in europe which is an area the size of one of the SANZAR countries boundaries.
We also have two levels for the different teams.
It is a money spinner for everyone

Problem with SH is it is the whole SH not just the richest area.
Argies have to be added to S15 or what is the point of being in the 4N.
So that right now SA is able to have their teams not loss making. They have the base for atleast one more team and the players to back it up.
NZRU have to run their teams at a loss but the union can cover the losses
ARU have to run their teams at a loss and their union can't cover it
The Argies can not support two teams through the union

If under the new system the NZ/Aus teams would only play 6.5 home games in the conference. So less travel but also less home games.
There is no way that SARU will agree to give over more then 66.6% to the other three unions (or else they are getting less money). Argies would have to get a sizable amount if they are playing in with SA and to be able to fund their two teams.
Japanesse union can't afford a team and the companies funding the Jap league only care about Japan and beating their compeditors.

So from what i can see only SA will generate more money (as it will more or less be the top division in SA club rugby).
At best NZARwon't lose any more then now (though unlikely)
Argentina will lose buckets of money or will have so much off NZAR that they become more loss making.

SA got half the attendances of S15. Until the other three unions match them per team they wont make enough.
Lower attendance in Europe work is beacuse travel is cheaper and TV is more.

by **Biltong** Thu 08 Aug 2013, 9:49 pm

Keep the Rugby championship and walk away, then negotiate with Argentina to bring one team in, similar to the Los Pampas that have been playing in the Vodacom cup, but with better first choice players, then bring in another team, eventually we can have a supr 12 with them and all the while we keep our money.

My first choice of course is just to walk away completely, improve our Currie cup and own development and just play Rugby championship.

by Brendan Thu 08 Aug 2013, 10:06 pm

Biltong wrote:Keep the Rugby championship and walk away, then negotiate with Argentina to bring one team in, similar to the Los Pampas that have been playing in the Vodacom cup, but with better first choice players, then bring in another team, eventually we can have a supr 12 with them and all the while we keep our money.

My first choice of course is just to walk away completely, improve our Currie cup and own development and just play Rugby championship.

See i think ARU reckon if they don't have to travel to SA but get the same money they will be running the teams at break even. Also they think they will get higher average attendances per game with just NZ teams.

I don't think they really know how much it will cost to run the Argie teams.

I do think that SARU and Argentina should do a league of 10 teams. 8 from SA.
You would get nearly as much money from Supersport as S15 and not have to give away as much as to NZAR.

by nganboy Fri 09 Aug 2013, 12:44 am

I'm not in favour of letting SA have another team in Super rugby (in anything close to its current format). I think we have seen that they only have enough talent for 4/5 at best. Same for NZ. Also Aus at the very most can support 4 teams.

I'd prefer to go back to 14 teams play everyone once with may be a bye week the middle. So 13 games each over 14 weeks. Top 4 teams into the semis, no guarantees who. I don't see any real merit in including Japan or Argentina or the PIs. Money is dodgy and travel is horrid.

by Sponsored content

Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.

Re: Changes on the cards for SANZAR.