Super 18

This looks like a bit of a dog's dinner

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/australian-rugby-union-boss-bill-pulver-reveals-super-rugby-expansion-plans-20140430-zr1xu.html

Super Rugby is poised to move forward with a four-conference model in 2016 - with two based in South Africa...On the eve of an important meeting with provincial chief executives, Pulver has backed a Super 18 model for 2016 where Australian and New Zealand conferences would remain the same.

Australia's five teams would play two less "local derby" matches in a 15-game regular season but would strengthen their Anzac ties by increasing their four matches against Kiwi rivals to five.

Significant changes will be made in South Africa with their six teams, including the recalled Southern Kings, put in two pools with a new Argentine team and a final side, which the ARU hopes will be based in the Asian market.

Those two four-team conferences - including an overseas expansion team in each - will only face one of the two Australasian conferences each year, which reduces fears of an increase in travel.

"It's likely to be a four-conference model and this will be finalised in the next couple of weeks to be announced," Pulver said.

What a mess. 1 spot to an Asian team is their hope to get zillions out of the Japanese market? Strewth mate, sounds pretty desperate to me...

Hmmm.

Well... the best I can say is a) It can't be more confusing than the current format and b) The conference system should cut down on unnecessary traveling which has long been a bane of the tournament. Apart from the, er, Asian team. They'll be flying everywhere- I imagine they'll be based in Japan or maybe Hong Kong. Could be brilliant for rugby in Asia long term but in the short term they'll probably make Zebre look ultra-competitive.

SANZAR is losing the plot, if they go ahead with this convoluted idea I will not support it any longer.

Slap a bit of lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.

How do they create this Asian team? Do they pick the winners of Japanese league? In this case, I don't think they'll fair to badly.

But if The Japanese franchises don't agree, do they have to form a new team?

Overall, I think this would be good for Japanese rugby, Brilliant for Argentine rugby, and should lead to less travelling and more revenue (which should lead to more competitive salaries), I really don't know why I'm against it, but sure as the day is long, I really am

South Africa plays Super Rugby for one benefit, that is to expose their players to New Zealand and Australian rugby.

For that we split the revenue three ways even.

Without that there is no benefit to us.

Global rugby hotpot, who wants some? Spin the wheel who are you playing today?

There is some irony that whilst European rugby is looking to expand the game to "lesser" nations (one of the few, or only, positives to come out of the debacle) SANZAR is continuing to neglect the Pacific Islands in favour of Japan, I'm not suggesting a team based on one of the Islands and financially, politically and demographically it would be practically impossible to choose one or two of the Islands to host it on but surely a team could be based in one of the other nations and only players eligible for Fiji, Tonga or Samoa can play for them would be better for the competition than a Japanese one?

123456789 wrote:There is some irony that whilst European rugby is looking to expand the game to "lesser" nations (one of the few, or only, positives to come out of the debacle) SANZAR is continuing to neglect the Pacific Islands in favour of Japan, I'm not suggesting a team based on one of the Islands and financially, politically and demographically it would be practically impossible to choose one or two of the Islands to host it on but surely a team could be based in one of the other nations and only players eligible for Fiji, Tonga or Samoa can play for them would be better for the competition than a Japanese one?

A PI team could be based in Fiji in their brand new ANZ stadium, which has a capacity of 30k. (Although I doubt Samoa and Tonga would be happy with all the games played there). However Japan brings the money and is definitely a growing market and they are producing more top players now. This is also good preparation for the Japanese national team for the 2019 WC.

Biltong, the Aussie's are basically saying they don't want to actually play the South Africans as much but play the Kiwi's instead. Do they still want South African TV money in the central pot I wonder?

After all the money arguments in Europe, at least nobody was trying to get off with not actually having to play teams from other countries, but still taking the cash they generate. Sheesh. I like the way the Aussie's have also kindly proposed that the new, probably cr@p, teams can enter the South African conferences, not the Aussie one.

That said though, getting Argentinians and Japanese or Pacific Islanders into it would be brilliant for their development in the long run. The travel is the big problem though. And the ever more convoluted tournament structure

120 million people in Japan, a GDP more than three times Sanzars combined GDP, and a population not unaccustomed to hero worshipping athletes excelling in sports they aren't overly proficient in, can't blame Sanzar for trying to catch this carrot.

I'm not sure that European rugby is any more interested in expanding the game to lesser nations now than it ever was Numbers. The new third tier Euro Cup is a slight improvement, good to see Georgia getting a game against Ireland next Autumn but it's hardly a concerted effort.

Biltong wrote:South Africa plays Super Rugby for one benefit, that is to expose their players to New Zealand and Australian rugby.

For that we split the revenue three ways even.

Without that there is no benefit to us.

I thought the issue driving it was the New Zealand teams and the Aussie teams wanted to play you less due to travel. It does just seem like you wouldn't be getting anything out of this than you could get yourself other than more revenue. Which is probably a fair enough reason to stay in.

kingraf wrote:How do they create this Asian team? Do they pick the winners of Japanese league? In this case, I don't think they'll fair to badly.

But if The Japanese franchises don't agree, do they have to form a new team?

Overall, I think this would be good for Japanese rugby, Brilliant for Argentine rugby,  and should lead to less travelling and more revenue (which should lead to more competitive salaries),  I really don't know why I'm against it, but sure as the day is long, I really am

Haha, very good. The Average Attendance in the Japanese Top League is apparently around 4500 - 5000. I would have thought a team in Hong Kong might have a bigger market but Japan has the money and player base, and the World Cup around the corner. I think this needs to run in parallel to their league and not replace it otherwise it would do more harm than good.

They might even do okay if they consolidated all the foreign players currently in Japan into their Super Rugby team... if they got the Corporations that own the best five or six teams in Japan to act as co-sponsors they would eclipse Toulon in the moneybags stakes. Some of the salaries guys are on over there are just massive, Jaque Fourie is apparently the highest paid player in the world right now.

Hopefully they have a rule on homegrown players though, otherwise the entire point will be somewhat lost. They should start off with say 5 Japanese players in the starting XV as a rule and then target increases over each season. I think Melbourne Rebels did it that way as well although they would be more reliant on imports than they were initially. Otherwise they'll just be the team where good Super Rugby players go to die and the opportunity will be lost.

Dont the teams get bored of playing each other in the conferences? Considering theyre going to be playing in their ITM and Currie Cups

Cool. If they can expand to a Super 20, then the talent will be so diluted that I can have my team to represent the sovreign nation of New Jersey in that competition and I can play. Then you will see some real Rugby played (if my wife still lets me play Rugby in 2018).

IronMike wrote:Dont the teams get bored of playing each other in the conferences? Considering theyre going to be playing in their ITM and Currie Cups

I thought the concept supporting the conference idea was to generate more interest? No? Maybe that didn't work?

I'm in Japan, and I'm always struck by how little public discussion there is here of Super Rugby participation. The bare bones of this plan have been out long enough that the press could have a take but there's nothing. Instead, we've got coverage of the announcement of the new Top League schedule.

It's highly likely that any negotiations are still ongoing, so most outlets wouldn't want to speculate idly - rugby really isn't a big enough sport for that kind of coverage - but there isn't even really anything on Twitter from curious fans.

Both John Kirwan and Eddie Jones insist that the JRFU is very interested, and I don't doubt that. We are a bit short on details, though.

Japan is on the other side of the world from Europe but a quick check will confirm it is still in the Northern Hemisphere. The Top League season runs from August to February and then there's the All Japan Rugby Football Championship which starts afterwards and finishes mid-March.

We don't know if we are looking at the current champions qualifying for a Super Rugby berth or a new side entirely, essentially Japan's national team. The clubs do not always see eye to eye with the JRFU, so I'd be fascinated to know how that discussion is going.

Total rugby have announced the following: Africa group (6 SA teams, Argentinian team, TBA announced team) and Australasian group (5 NZ teams, 5 Aus teams).

Additional SA team is the Kings. The TBA announced team could be SA, Jap or Pacific.

Surely it makes more sense for Japanese teams to go to Australia than flying all the way to SA. Thats a hell of a flight.

BUt i can understand the logic of getting them in the thing as a whole...as it will help their rugby having a S18 team.

That's why I think it may be another SA team in there. If there is a tier 2, that should consist of a pacific, another Argentinian and Japanese teams.

so lets get one thing straight....

SA teams will have to travel to Argentina & Japan.... as well as already huge commutes to AUS & NZ.

I wonder which players will be more fatigued by the end of the season.

Our Docs will be getting a lot of overtime me thinks. Lots of stress fractures predicted.

I'm not sure whether or not SA teams will play Aus/NZ teams until the play-offs. It could be that they're just playing teams inside their own conference?

PIs get left out again, assuming it is a Japanese team taking the final spot

The Saint wrote:I'm not sure whether or not SA teams will play Aus/NZ teams until the play-offs. It could be that they're just playing teams inside their own conference?

Na

They will play the usual number but the conference determines final placing in the ladder... built by the aussies because they were scared of getting no playoff spots. I think the number of domestic derbies is reduced.

There's a working assumption this final team will be from japan in some fashion but the SANZAR unions appear to be claiming interest from Europe, America, HK and Singapore. It's not clear whether any of that is genuine, or whether its an attempt to talk up the entry price for the Japanese.

South Africa seems to be doing a lot of the heavy lifting in this deal. Perhaps 'because they are the only ones who realistically can. I know fans like Biltong are unhappy because it looks like their Super Rugby season will be mainly playing each other - which they already do in the Currie Cup - and the two new franchises, who will be an uncertain attraction.

SA always does the heavy lifting, the ones paying the cheques and the ones who do the most travelling to make it work.

The future is not in Super Rugby long term for SA. As it grows in Asia most likely NZ & AUS will find its more profitable for them to concentrate there.

For SA like Smit & Merthens have said, a collision with France and England would make a huge commerical opportunity encompassing 170MM people in the 3 largest unions in the world... within 2 timezones only 1hr apart and eventually I think it will happen.... this new deal will have a huge impact on the physical conditions of the SA players.... they have to travel to ARG, JAP, NZ & AUS time and again over 4 months.... it will break them.

Why arent any Pacific Island teams involved in the new model?

on merit... they would be.

Financially. Not worth it.

What are the TV rights for Tonga, Samoa & Fiji going to be compared to Japan?

Even if its a minority sport in Japan, the difference will be huge.

Shame really.

Well I am done with Supershit, they can keep their new format, it is a convoluted mess and utter rubbish.

fa0019 wrote:SA always does the heavy lifting, the ones paying the cheques and the ones who do the most travelling to make it work.

The future is not in Super Rugby long term for SA. As it grows in Asia most likely NZ & AUS will find its more profitable for them to concentrate there.

For SA like Smit & Merthens have said, a collision with France and England would make a huge commerical opportunity encompassing 170MM people in the 3 largest unions in the world... within 2 timezones only 1hr apart and eventually I think it will happen.... this new deal will have a huge impact on the physical conditions of the SA players.... they have to travel to ARG, JAP, NZ & AUS time and again over 4 months.... it will break them.

You'd be hard pushed to enamour the French and English to share a bed with SA at club level.

No 1. There are no franchises.
No 2. They'd still be 6000 miles apart.

Why couldn't the SA Currie Cup teams play against the French and English clubs?

Really the only logical solution is for SA to stay domestic, is it really worth the extra finance and travel for SA teams just to play against some Aus and NZ teams? The Currie Cup is already popular enough.

I finally understand why I don't like this. It feels more Harlem Globetrotters than premier rugby tournament in the world

http://www.melbournerebels.com.au/news/article/aru-welcomes-new-vision-for-super-rugby

No excuses for feeling knackered before the AI's if they survive this.

rainbow-warrior, merged your post with the thread that is already going on the subject   

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/9997858/Fewer-derbies-a-good-thing-says-Richie-McCaw

Interesting that Richie McCaw has come out and said as far as players are concerned they want a system where they play fewer derbies... not more.

why don't they just split it like the Nba? two conferences, top four from each conference play each other, then the conference champs meet in a final.

I see Zimbabwe have put their hat in the ring for a spot in the SA conferences?

Any thoughts on that?

Surely a Vodacom Cup position should be considered first?

http://www.herald.co.zw/sables-eye-super-15-berth/

They declined playing in the Vodacom because it is too expensive, their economy is in tatters, their cricket players had a scenario where for half a year they received no salaries, then the ICC provided them with a loan to pay salaries and that money ended up being used for other stuff, how are they going to manage a Super Rugby team?

Biltong wrote:SANZAR is losing the plot, if they go ahead with this convoluted idea I will not support it any longer.

Join the Rabo!   

Biltong wrote:SANZAR is losing the plot, if they go ahead with this convoluted idea I will not support it any longer.

Set up your own ~10 team league but play some cup games against the English  

I would love us to leave Super Rugby and build our Currie Cup.

We have the traditional 6 teams that are fully professional, this year they are adding two more to the Premier division, this means we will have 8 teams, if we use that base from 2016 and add one more of the remaining teams per year it will take us to 2022 by which all 14 our provinces will have been incorporated into the premier division, similar to the top 14 in France.

Our viewership numbers during Currie Cup outshines the viewership we get during Super rugby, which means television revenue wise with 14 teams we should still make a significant amount of money.

Where we average 30 000 per game spectator wise in the SUper rugby competition it is about half that for CUrrie Cup, but if we no longer have SUper Rugby our spectator numbers will increase.

Financially we should be OK, even if we can't pay nearly as much as the NH clubs.

We will be able to pay over 400 player salaries which improve what we have now.

I have always believed the less you play opposition country club sides the less they know about you and tests becomes more of a ....well, test.

That would be my answer to SARU if they asked me.

Would you still encorporate places for nearby nations Bilts.

Ie Keep Namibia in the cup...possibly any other countries close by.

I agree with you above re Zimbabwe...just sounds crazy given their economy, general country instability etc.

Namibia can't really realistically be a genuine CC side. They have hardly any players, if you're a boer and you play for your school team in Namibia its almost guaranteed you'll represent Namibia by sheer lack of numbers.

Doesn't mean they don't produce top players now and again but simply they don't have the depth to put out a week in week out side to rival professional outfits.

In the end unless SA can find a model to increase financial wealth in the sport then they will stick with what they have got. If you pay players less, expect more to up sticks and leave.

FA,

Namibia has been the "2nd" team in Africa for quite a long time now (generally qualifying for the WC) etc. Can you see them falling behind as other teams on the continent (with far bigger populations) begin to take up the sport seriously?

So there isn't going to be a Japanese team now? That is very dissapointing.

Has that been confirmed L4L?

I think the travel logistics were one of the issues. UNless they were to be in the Aussie side of the conference.

Nothing has been confirmed yet but in the article it says:

"South Africa will have two of the four conferences under the new format, with the six South African franchises being joined by an Argentine side and an African team."

So it looks like its going to be a team from close to SA basing it on that article.

GeordieFalcon wrote:FA,

Namibia has been the "2nd" team in Africa for quite a long time now (generally qualifying for the WC) etc. Can you see them falling behind as other teams on the continent (with far bigger populations) begin to take up the sport seriously?

Lots of boere in Namibia, still many go to the private schools in SA particularly the western cape so they will always have half decent players. But if a country like Kenya took up the sport seriously like they have with 7s then no doubt they will surpass Namibia.

I mean Namibia has a population of only 2MM people and nearly all the rugby players are white (i.e. what 5% of the population). So their pool is very small.

Can't see another African nation getting super rugby. If so it will be either full of south africans themselves or mercenaries from around the world. No one else is good enough.

Will SA put in 7 sides? More plausible than anything else on the continent.