Expansion plans for Super Rugby....! Bring on the Super XVIII

From Planet Rugby

Super Rugby bosses are considering splitting the current three-conference system into two from 2016 and adding two teams from Argentina.

Under a possible Super 18 concept which appears the most logical future competition, Australian and New Zealand sides would combine in their own conference while South Africa and Argentina would join to form a separate conference.

Leading administrator also revealed there is the possibility of Japanese teams being added in three years' time, but there is lots of work to be done.

Super Rugby expansion is certain to occur after the 2015 World Cup with governing body SANZAR committed to ensuring the recently-relegated Southern Kings will be one of six South African teams.

While SANZAR, which aims to finalise its next model by the end of 2013, has plenty to consider before deciding upon its preferred concept, the three-conference system appears to be coming to an end.

SANZAR CEO Greg Peters said the time-frame for the tournament - currently played over 21 weeks, including three weeks for play-offs - could not be extended.

That makes it virtually impossible to keep the current structure if new teams are added as the Australian, New Zealand and South African rugby unions want their local derby matches to be played at home and away.

With the rigours of travel to and from South Africa combining to make player welfare a bigger issue, the simplest solution is for a two-conference split.

That would see the five Australian sides playing each other twice and the five Ne Zealand teams once for 13 matches before both conferences came together in a six or eight-team play-offs series.

AustralianRugby Union chief Bill Pulver, who is also on SANZAR's executive committee, said the ARU had not decided on its preferred model but stressed the five Australian teams would remain.

"We're trying to keep a very open mind to what this structure looks like," he told AAP.

It is more likely two new Argentinian franchises, rather than one, would be added to what would become an eight-team South African/American conference.

That scenario would allow all teams to play home and away over 14 rounds.

The heavy political pressure for South Africa to have six teams only intensified when the Port Elizabeth-based Kings lost a closely-fought two-match relegation/promotion play-off with the Johannesburg-based Lions last weekend.

"We really understand the desire for that from South Africa," Peters said.

"The Kings have 32 per cent of the playing population and 72 per cent of that is coloured.

"We understand the need for six teams in South Africa."

While there are massive commercial benefits with the inclusion of Japan before it hosts the 2019 World Cup, there are logistical problems in fitting them into the Australasian conference.

SANZAR and the ARU are both pushing for the June international window to be moved to July to ensure Super Rugby can be played in one complete block instead of being interrupted for Test matches before the play-offs.

Would be great for Argentina to get super club franchises set up in Argentina.
Also it'll be interesting how the tv revenue would be split from such a set up. SA would have the most tv revenue I presume and they would also have the most costs in terms of heading to Argentina.
But previously didn't the 3 unions split the pot equally.  I presume Argies don't get an equal share. So will Oz and NZ claim equal takes when their sides will only have limited involvement on south african soil for matches?
Or do Oz & NZ claim quality of games over quantity of viewers in sharing out TV revenue.

Good idea. Brilliant for the Puma's. Would be great for the Japanese if they got in too. The more involved in top class competition the better.

And in Europe the the Franglo clubs want to destroy a great competition unless they get more money and reduce the number of competitors from other countries.

I want to see how the money splits because there is no way under this structure thst SA will give NZ & Aus the same as them.

Also I dont think that the Japanesse union could afford an S15 team and i dont think the companies would do joint ventures to put up the money.

If Agrie players go back home the Rabo will need to lock up its players for when the French and to a lesser extent the English come looking for replacements.

Worst idea ever.

If SARU falls for this trick by the ARU, I will walk away from rugby.

I cannot beleive SARU will even entertain this idea.

The ARU must be laughing behind our backs.

This is what they want, a tournament where they get to play the best opposition without having to travel and still gets funded by SA simply because we get a token play off match.

Biltong, I like the idea of getting the Argentinians and Japanese into Super Rugby though.

Regarding the structure, you're right actually. The Aussie's would get to test their players against the best opposition regularly, every year, while the South Africans wouldn't. Not very fair to give the Aussie's that experience as they develop new players and deny it to the South Africans.

I wonder would a South American conference be viable. If it was it would make the Super Rugby structure neater. Four conferences, top 2 from each go into the quarter finals. But the South American conference would be ridiculously weak compared to the others for quite a long time.

Would be better for international rugby in the long run though.

And regarding money, just give every team an equal slice.

Feckless, if we join with Argentina then that is fine, but then we keep the revenue, why would we even think of stepping away but still split the tV revenue with them?

We bring in 67% of the viewership which means the revenue comes from us, whilst we only get one third.

Does that make any sense to you?

So sure, let's team up with Argentina, but then the revenue made in our seperate competition is ours.

Let OZ and NZ get their revenue sorted on their own.

Round about 2028 it will be called Super XXVIII.

Will sound like another Rocky type sequel.

I can envisage the day when this competition becomes an uncontrolable, unmanageable monster and gets to the point where it just falls over.

Its come along way from the SPC, when it had 8 teams.

So biltong do you have more of a problem with the Aussie's getting more games against higher class opposition (that's what would worry me), or with the money split?

I hate these money arguments and who deserves it more. Recently Ireland has benefited from being financially rewarded for what they do on the actual rugby field. When it changes to teams gaining a permanent financial advantage by virtue of being located in a country with more televisions, well, I don't see that as fair.

I wish every team would just be happy with an equal share and the well being of rugby in all nations kept in everyone's minds. Am I some sort of a communist? (adds to list for next confession). But I also agree with you. It's a bit ridiculous if the Aussie's basically want the money generated by showing advertisements to South Africans, without actually having to bother playing the South Africans. And I can't see that happening.

Biltong wrote:Feckless, if we join with Argentina then that is fine, but then we keep the revenue, why would we even think of stepping away but still split the tV revenue with them?

We bring in 67% of the viewership which means the revenue comes from us, whilst we only get one third.

Does that make any sense to you?

So sure, let's team up with Argentina, but then the revenue made in our seperate competition is ours.

Let OZ and NZ get their revenue sorted on their own.

I wonder if the Rabo could do the same for fixing the ERC debate. They would be laughed out of it.

Is there a deal to join Argentina to Super Rugby or is it solely just 4N. If it is part of the deal is they have to add Argentina to S15 this is just NZAR stopping themselves from going broke. The carrot for SA is but you get to keep your six teams. But whathappens when kimberly want a team or another area.

Feckless

I dont think its a case of countries not being happy with their equal share, its more a case of countries not bringing an equal share to the table in the first place.

Feckless Rogue wrote:So biltong do you have more of a problem with the Aussie's getting more games against higher class opposition (that's what would worry me), or with the money split?

I hate these money arguments and who deserves it more. Recently Ireland has benefited from being financially rewarded for what they do on the actual rugby field. When it changes to teams gaining a permanent financial advantage by virtue of being located in a country with more televisions, well, I don't see that as fair.

I wish every team would just be happy with an equal share and the well being of rugby in all nations kept in everyone's minds. Am I some sort of a communist? (adds to list for next confession). But I also agree with you. It's a bit ridiculous if the Aussie's basically want the money generated by showing advertisements to South Africans, without actually having to bother playing the South Africans. And I can't see that happening.

Your last paragraph pretty much sums it up nicely.

We pay and they get to play.

Brendan wrote:

Biltong wrote:Feckless, if we join with Argentina then that is fine, but then we keep the revenue, why would we even think of stepping away but still split the tV revenue with them?

We bring in 67% of the viewership which means the revenue comes from us, whilst we only get one third.

Does that make any sense to you?

So sure, let's team up with Argentina, but then the revenue made in our seperate competition is ours.

Let OZ and NZ get their revenue sorted on their own.

I wonder if the Rabo could do the same for fixing the ERC debate.  They would be laughed out of it.

Is there a deal to join Argentina to Super Rugby or is it solely just 4N.  If it is part of the deal is they have to add Argentina to S15 this is just NZAR stopping themselves from going broke.  The carrot for SA is but you get to keep your six teams.  But whathappens when kimberly want a team or another area.

The ARU thinks the sixth team is the carrot they can dangle to screw us over.

They think if they "kindly" allow us a sixth team, they can con us into thinking we get a great deal, then to mix the pot more, they bring up travel and suggest we lessen travel by splitting into two conferecnes, so SA can really play with themselves and pay for the ANZAC teams to have a real competition.

So what's the solution?

As Argentina grow in to the rugby championship, Japan have the largest economy, they are always going to be obvious nations to include.

maestegmafia wrote:So what's the solution?

As Argentina grow in to the rugby championship, Japan have the largest economy, they are always going to be obvious nations to include.

National league entry to the SH top club competition? A revolutionary concept!

Top 2 SA, Oz, NZ 1 each Nippon, Argentina to play H/A games.

maestegmafia wrote:So what's the solution?

As Argentina grow in to the rugby championship, Japan have the largest economy, they are always going to be obvious nations to include.

I can't see japan as being one.  They have so much money only because the companies like to be number on in anything in Japan.
How does the union pick the company to run the Super team because there is no way the union can fund a full team let alone two and thats without even taking into account travel.
Do we even know if Japan want to join, they get top players helping their players to improve and the union pays nothing.  Why would they change it.

For me, getting Argentinian franchises in should be the priority. They're in the rugby championship. Their top players should be playing for Argentinian franchises in Super Rugby. It would help them with the speed and intensity required for the international competition.

As for the best format, that's a tricky one. Because there's no way Argentina could sustain 5 competitive pro teams. Two would be pushing it I'd say.