If South Africa were to join Europe night games in SA night be the answer?

First topic message reminder :

Good morning Gents. The subject of the structure of Super Rugby often comes up on another site I frequent. The discussion inevitably moves towards many Aussie wanting to kick South Africa out of Super Rugby.

There are different formats that the Aussies in general suggest, but the one common theme is that South Africa must go.

And with that suggestion come the opinion that South Africa must join the European season. Personally I don't see this as an option due to the fact that our seasons do not align. However I want to see what the opinion is of the European rugby supporters.

Do you want South Africa involved in the European comps, if so which ones and how will it be accommodated.

Thanks.

they would still play tri nations. or 4 nations as it now is. it is NZ's biggest money-maker.

and to be honest i am not sure that super rugby, with most AB's absent being rested for their central contracts, really does that much for preparing teams to beat the ABs. which is clearly every saffer rugby fan's goal.

Sin é wrote:Quinners, the standard of SA rugby dropped during the sporting ban under apartheid. Not playing Super Rugby & Tri Nations would weaken SH rugby.

Disagree with that, firstly under apartheid we had no measure of how the world played rugby, so each of the coaches that came in after isolation chose their own players, from Ian McKintosh (Sharks) Jogn Williams (Northern Transvaal) to eventually Kitch Christie.

The Springbok team that won the RWC in 1995 had thirteen Transvaal players on the pitch.

Provincialism was rife at that stage as it had become our test rugby for more than a decade.

These coaches hardly selected the best players in the country.

By moving away from Super rugby hardly puts us in isolation.

quinsforever wrote:they would still play tri nations. or 4 nations as it now is. it is NZ's biggest money-maker.

and to be honest i am not sure that super rugby, with most AB's absent being rested for their central contracts, really does that much for preparing teams to beat the ABs. which is clearly every saffer rugby fan's goal.

You think NZ & Australia will continue to play Tri Nations with SA if they pull out of Super Rugby? Very, very doubtful. Apart from anything else, the seasons would not suit.

Biltong wrote:

Sin é wrote:Quinners, the standard of SA rugby dropped during the sporting ban under apartheid. Not playing Super Rugby & Tri Nations would weaken SH rugby.

Disagree with that, firstly under apartheid we had no measure of how the world played rugby, so each of the coaches that came in after isolation chose their own players, from Ian McKintosh (Sharks) Jogn Williams (Northern Transvaal) to eventually Kitch Christie.

The Springbok team that won the RWC in 1995 had thirteen Transvaal players on the pitch.

Provincialism was rife at that stage as it had become our test rugby for more than a decade.

These coaches hardly selected the best players in the country.

By moving away from Super rugby hardly puts us in isolation.

SA were at home and were fortunate that the ABs all got sick!

Sin e, this started because Biltong said that if Australia and New Zealand are able to get money from the Asia market they would less interested in travelling to South Africa for the 'club' competition. Perhaps they would also scrap the international competition but I doubt it.

HoT - Australia maybe (because of their financial situation). I really doubt if NZ would drop Super Rugby for a League with Aus & Japan as their primary club competition. Perhaps NZ might enter their ITM Cup teams, but they would become uncompetitive internationally without Super Rugby.

NZ will have a big say in all of this as they have the teams that everyone wants to play against.

Biltong wrote:

Sin é wrote:Quinners, the standard of SA rugby dropped during the sporting ban under apartheid. Not playing Super Rugby & Tri Nations would weaken SH rugby.

Disagree with that, firstly under apartheid we had no measure of how the world played rugby, so each of the coaches that came in after isolation chose their own players, from Ian McKintosh (Sharks) Jogn Williams (Northern Transvaal) to eventually Kitch Christie.

The Springbok team that won the RWC in 1995 had thirteen Transvaal players on the pitch.

Provincialism was rife at that stage as it had become our test rugby for more than a decade.

These coaches hardly selected the best players in the country.

By moving away from Super rugby hardly puts us in isolation.

SA would be ok if they played against European Clubs. Southern Hemisphere rugby would suffer (NZ, Aus & Argentina through lack of competition).

By the way, there is also the issue of altitude playing in SA. Rest weeks would have to be introduced throughout the competition for travelling. The French clubs who love their domestic league would not be too pleased as they would definitely have to drop games to facilitate travelling. Super Rugby teams are mainly involved in one competition. European teams are involved in two competitions and you may have noted the criticism the Irish Provinces get in particular because of taking it handy apparently in the Pro12.

Sin é, Have you read the whole of this thread & looked at Bilt's proposed season. He wants the Currie Cup to become a domestic league(starting with 8 teams moving to up to 14 ) to act as a Qualifier for ERCC. Distance isn't that great an issue as it is time zones that really mess you up & as SA is in an adjacent time zone it wouldn't make that much difference. The main problem is trying to synchronise the seasons to allow it to happen.

I think South Africa leaving the New Zealand and Australia would pretty much kill off those 2 nations, it would be like England and France leaving the 6 Nations.

South Africa are basically responsible for most of the sponsor and television money, the problem is when South Africa want something their always ganged up on by Australia and New Zealand.

Personally I'd love to have them in Europe and the 6 Nations and I think their fans might prefer them in with us, while their is no reason why they couldn't tour NewZealand and / or Australia in the summer each year anyway.

There is no reason why the Currie Cup could not replace Super rugby for them, the depth of South African rugby is immense.  They could easily match the French Top 14 by combining their 8 premier division clubs and their 6 first division clubs.

They would certainly have no reason to be fearful of leaving Super rugby.


People seem to be saying that there is no room for the South African teams but you could easily add another pool of teams to the competition.  The problem was the lack of depth in Europe, Edinburgh, and Zebre, along with Connaght and the Dragons qualified but were always also rans in the tournament.  How can anyone say Aironi losing 82-0 at home to Clermont could be a good thing for the tournament?  That's not competitive, but adding South African teams would be a good thing in every sense.  

6 pools of 4 teams is 24 teams, from 4 domestic competitions, that's 6 teams per league (6 Pro 12, 6 English, 6 French, 6 South African, 24 teams, 6 pools of 4) it fits easily.  1 team from each league also per pool, so we won't have situations where you have say 2 French or English teams playing each other in the same pool.

My personal worry is that France, England and South Africa make their own tournament, which would really create a huge problem for Celtic rugby.

Shifty, just in case you missed it, this is based on Australia and New Zealand wanting to leave South Africa due to time zone issues. Only done if they get enough money from the Asian market that they don't need them. Potentially leaving South Africa in the lurch.

HammerofThunor wrote:Shifty, just in case you missed it, this is based on Australia and New Zealand wanting to leave South Africa due to time zone issues. Only done if they get enough money from the Asian market that they don't need them. Potentially leaving South Africa in the lurch.

Yes I got that bit.
What I'm saying is if you expand Europe back to 24 teams then South Africa can fit into it easily. We only dropped to 20 to cut out the weaker Pro 12 teams who were always getting beaten. The South African teams would not be beaten as easily as Aironi, Treviso, Edinburgh, Connacht, Dragons, Scarlets and the Blues.
Your only talking 1 pool game away from home to go there and play.

Sorry, yeah, I agree with that point. Just referring to the beginning bit saying it would kill off Aus and NZ.

Shifty wrote:I think South Africa leaving the New Zealand and Australia would pretty much kill off those 2 nations, it would be like England and France leaving the 6 Nations.

South Africa are basically responsible for most of the sponsor and television money, the problem is when South Africa want something their always ganged up on by Australia and New Zealand.

Personally I'd love to have them in Europe and the 6 Nations and I think their fans might prefer them in with us, while their is no reason why they couldn't tour NewZealand and / or Australia in the summer each year anyway.

There is no reason why the Currie Cup could not replace Super rugby for them, the depth of South African rugby is immense.  They could easily match the French Top 14 by combining their 8 premier division clubs and their 6 first division clubs.

They would certainly have no reason to be fearful of leaving Super rugby.


People seem to be saying that there is no room for the South African teams but you could easily add another pool of teams to the competition.  The problem was the lack of depth in Europe, Edinburgh, and Zebre, along with Connaght and the Dragons qualified but were always also rans in the tournament.  How can anyone say Aironi losing 82-0 at home to Clermont could be a good thing for the tournament?  That's not competitive, but adding South African teams would be a good thing in every sense.  

6 pools of 4 teams is 24 teams, from 4 domestic competitions, that's 6 teams per league (6 Pro 12, 6 English, 6 French, 6 South African, 24 teams, 6 pools of 4) it fits easily.  1 team from each league also per pool, so we won't have situations where you have say 2 French or English teams playing each other in the same pool.

My personal worry is that France, England and South Africa make their own tournament, which would really create a huge problem for Celtic rugby.

Great post Shifty, now find a solution for the schedule.

Biltong wrote:

Shifty wrote:I think South Africa leaving the New Zealand and Australia would pretty much kill off those 2 nations, it would be like England and France leaving the 6 Nations.

South Africa are basically responsible for most of the sponsor and television money, the problem is when South Africa want something their always ganged up on by Australia and New Zealand.

Personally I'd love to have them in Europe and the 6 Nations and I think their fans might prefer them in with us, while their is no reason why they couldn't tour NewZealand and / or Australia in the summer each year anyway.

There is no reason why the Currie Cup could not replace Super rugby for them, the depth of South African rugby is immense.  They could easily match the French Top 14 by combining their 8 premier division clubs and their 6 first division clubs.

They would certainly have no reason to be fearful of leaving Super rugby.


People seem to be saying that there is no room for the South African teams but you could easily add another pool of teams to the competition.  The problem was the lack of depth in Europe, Edinburgh, and Zebre, along with Connaght and the Dragons qualified but were always also rans in the tournament.  How can anyone say Aironi losing 82-0 at home to Clermont could be a good thing for the tournament?  That's not competitive, but adding South African teams would be a good thing in every sense.  

6 pools of 4 teams is 24 teams, from 4 domestic competitions, that's 6 teams per league (6 Pro 12, 6 English, 6 French, 6 South African, 24 teams, 6 pools of 4) it fits easily.  1 team from each league also per pool, so we won't have situations where you have say 2 French or English teams playing each other in the same pool.

My personal worry is that France, England and South Africa make their own tournament, which would really create a huge problem for Celtic rugby.

Great post Shifty, now find a solution for the schedule.

Well South Africa would have to move to the northern hemisphere season. Assuming you merge the Currie Cup divisions and have 1 division of 14 teams, you'd have to have the same season as France, and their Top 14. Your teams would then have the same weekends free as France for the Heinaken Cup. The basic problem is if you choose to stay in the Rugby championship you'll have to start your season in August and play through to September. So your starting your rugby season with international rugby. It would be a very long season, so managing the game time of your very best players would be difficult.

Shifty wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Shifty wrote:I think South Africa leaving the New Zealand and Australia would pretty much kill off those 2 nations, it would be like England and France leaving the 6 Nations.

South Africa are basically responsible for most of the sponsor and television money, the problem is when South Africa want something their always ganged up on by Australia and New Zealand.

Personally I'd love to have them in Europe and the 6 Nations and I think their fans might prefer them in with us, while their is no reason why they couldn't tour NewZealand and / or Australia in the summer each year anyway.

There is no reason why the Currie Cup could not replace Super rugby for them, the depth of South African rugby is immense.  They could easily match the French Top 14 by combining their 8 premier division clubs and their 6 first division clubs.

They would certainly have no reason to be fearful of leaving Super rugby.


People seem to be saying that there is no room for the South African teams but you could easily add another pool of teams to the competition.  The problem was the lack of depth in Europe, Edinburgh, and Zebre, along with Connaght and the Dragons qualified but were always also rans in the tournament.  How can anyone say Aironi losing 82-0 at home to Clermont could be a good thing for the tournament?  That's not competitive, but adding South African teams would be a good thing in every sense.  

6 pools of 4 teams is 24 teams, from 4 domestic competitions, that's 6 teams per league (6 Pro 12, 6 English, 6 French, 6 South African, 24 teams, 6 pools of 4) it fits easily.  1 team from each league also per pool, so we won't have situations where you have say 2 French or English teams playing each other in the same pool.

My personal worry is that France, England and South Africa make their own tournament, which would really create a huge problem for Celtic rugby.

Great post Shifty, now find a solution for the schedule.

Well South Africa would have to move to the northern hemisphere season.  Assuming you merge the Currie Cup divisions and have 1 division of 14 teams, you'd have to have the same season as France, and their Top 14.  Your teams would then have the same weekends free as France for the Heinaken Cup.  The basic problem is if you choose to stay in the Rugby championship you'll have to start your season in August and play through to September.  So your starting your rugby season with international rugby.  It would be a very long season, so managing the game time of your very best players would be difficult.

There is one obstacle that will prevent that, our summers are simply too hot. Dec and Jan is impossible

Here is my attempt.  There is some wiggle room with a large off season for South Africa and the 'Development' section for Europe.  These can be used to add in spaces during internationals or for additional competitions (LV).

You cannot have domestic games during all european team AIs and 6N games. It's a no go. You'll have to start the domestic seasons earlier in august.
I Personally do not see a solution specially as having a block ERCC over a couple of month will kill it's broadcasting value. And 3/4 months is the maximum it would last in order to avoid both summers

Biltong wrote:There is one obstacle that will prevent that, our summers are simply too hot. Dec and Jan is impossible

I have had family live out there during the early 90's but I wasn't aware of that fact.  I don't know how it could reasonably work then, money is all that really talks, and if South Africa and the European teams could generate enough money to make it worth while I'm sure they'd find a way of making it happen.  From what I've read South Africa are the only country outside of France and England capable of bringing big money to the table.  I really don't see any problem with the Heinaken Cup though, 6 pools of 4 teams with 6 teams from the Pro 12, 6 from France, 6 from England and 6 from South Africa works really well.  

Certainly I'd enjoy watching the South Africans kick seven bells out of the English teams anyway.  

It seems regardless of whether a positive attitude can be adapted to accommodate SA into the European season it sees unlikely to happen

There are seasonal obstacles that seems impossible to overcome.

1. Our summers are simply too hot to play rugby.
2. It is therefor not possible for SA to adopt a NH season
3. This would mean Europe will have to make changes into their season to Accommodate SA which is not going to happen.

I would therefor suggest this idea is put to bed and possibly why the veiled threats of SA joining the European comps is nothing but a fanciful pipe dream for those involved.

Biltong wrote:It seems regardless of whether a positive attitude can be adapted to accommodate SA into the European season it sees unlikely to happen

There are seasonal obstacles that seems impossible to overcome.

1. Our summers are simply too hot to play rugby.
2. It is therefor not possible for SA to adopt a NH season
3. This would mean Europe will have to make changes into their season to Accommodate SA which is not going to happen.

I would therefor suggest this idea is put to bed and possibly why the veiled threats of SA joining the European comps is nothing but a fanciful pipe dream for those involved.

Sorted! Thread over. Roll the credits.

I can't see it happening for all the reasons above, but was wondering what Australia think they are going to get out of a league involving Asia - then it dawned on me.

The Aussies playing the long game here, and hope by getting cosy with the emerging Asian nations they'll eventually be able to garner enough IRB votes to weaken the scrum even further, reduce the number of players and finally get thier wish to turn the game into rugby league?

Just got an idea from another bloke, the matches in SA could be played at night, which would be even better for Europe time wise.

Did wonder if evening/night matches would be possible. Also while doing a little research (ok Wiki) noticed that in some places in SA the average temp in their hottest month (Jan) was about the same or lower than southern France in Aug(their hottest month) when the Top14 starts. So thought would it be possible to avoid playing matches in the hottest areas of SA during the hottest months to help the seasons match better?

I didn't consider nightgames until this other bloke suggested it, so it does provide more flexibility, yes

Bil, want to swap your temperatures, 2 deg C here in London.

The one thing that would make it all possible is money, if a sponsor came along with sufficient money, all the clubs would move heaven and earth to make it work. Night games, early season starts, agreements about int. matches all no problem if there is enough money. Remember that most AP clubs lose money and are kept going benefactors. I suspect that it is the same for the S12 clubs/regions. The French might see it differently, they take pride in losing as much money as possible and their owners don't care, especially about how it affects the national side.

I know, I'm a cynic.

Personally I would love it, flying to SA in January to watch Saints play, absolutely brilliant.

I suspect if the respective unions and clubs want to make it work they will find the necessary finances mate.

I was thinking along the lines of say Sky and a major sponsor such as a big bank coming together and make an offer to Premiership Rugby and the other bodies controlling the clubs, not necessarily the Unions.

In England, less so other countries, the clubs are independent of the RFU although they are dependant on each other.

Understood, but if there are any compromises necessary in finding the best schedule in the calendar all parties involved will have to work together

But this isn't going to happen for a long time, right? I mean there is nowhere near enough money in Asia yet to support the Australians so they're not going to drop South Africa any time soon. Who knows what it'll look like in anout 5-10 years. But if it happened, I do think that we could sort something out so that you would have a domestic competition and join Europe for an additional cup. And I'll look forward to it, I like South Africans (only met 4 but 100% so far)

Yeah, we're a nice bunch once you get to know us

TJ wrote:

Biltong wrote:You could just add one more team to each pool?

Nope - too many games to be played then.  It could go back to 24 teams / 6 pools but that would show the hypocrisy of the English and french in an even clearer light as we apparantly had to reduce to 20 teams for some odd reason that did not add up.

Also SA teams would be too good and thus would reduce the chances of English teams winning - thats not to be tolerated by the english

The demand for 20 teams had nothing to do with 20 being a magic number, and everything to do with wanting the PRO12 teams to compete for a place, rather than getting automatic entry. So if the SA sides were competing to get in I don't think there'd be any objection in principle to going back to 24 teams with 6 groups of 4, top teams and 2 best runners up going through, etc - especially if the SA teams bought in lots of TV revenue.

What probably would be a sticking point is the current Super Rugby franchises getting automatic entry. Presumably if the English and French clubs want the PRO 12 teams competing to get in they'd want the SA sides to do the same. So, top 4 Currie Cup sides in the champions cup and next lot in the challenge cup and no room for the franchises anywhere. Which I'm guessing would be a non-starter for SA.

In terms of fitting it into the season it really shouldn't be a problem as there is plenty of overlap between the NH and SH season, so perfectly manageable if it was played in one block (which seems more sensible to me anyway). In that sense I'm guessing it would come down to do they make more money playing it in one block with the SA sides include (increased market size) or playing without them but spread out through the year (more favourable exposure for sponsors).

big wrote:What probably would be a sticking point is the current Super Rugby franchises getting automatic entry. Presumably if the English and French clubs want the PRO 12 teams competing to get in they'd want the SA sides to do the same. So, top 4 Currie Cup sides in the champions cup and next lot in the challenge cup and no room for the franchises anywhere. Which I'm guessing would be a non-starter for SA

I don't see that being an issue at all, our Franchises used to qualify for the Super Rugby in earlier years.

However the fact is the teams that do qualify is likely to be the Super rugby teams as they are essentially the Currie Cup sides anyway.

The benefit for South African rugby would be that 4 more teams will play overseas clubs which isn't currently happening.

Big wrote:What probably would be a sticking point is the current Super Rugby franchises getting automatic entry.  Presumably if the English and French clubs want the PRO 12 teams competing to get in they'd want the SA sides to do the same.  So, top 4 Currie Cup sides in the champions cup and next lot in the challenge cup and no room for the franchises anywhere.  Which I'm guessing would be a non-starter for SA.

Don't think that would be a problem at all actually, not like there's that much difference between the franchises and provinces.

We had a topic like that on a french forum. The majority of fans were favorable to South Africa joining Europe. (competitive teams, more money for everyone and a new country to discover) But the main problem was to merge our season. And here our priority is our Top 14, that's why we wish to have an international cup in one block contrary to the current Champions Cup. And to have a better calendar we would like to have only one tour. One year at home, next year away. Some people even wish to not have the 6 nations when it's the world cup year.
Unfortunately for us, I don't think IRB would aprouve South Africa playing with us because it would damage the rugby in New-Zealand and Australia. But if it was possible we would gladly welcome you.

Lowlandbrit/Biltong - just goes to show how little I know about SA rugby. I thought it would be like NZ where (as I understand it) a few NPC clubs feed into each Super Rugby team. I didn't realise they were linked directly to national level clubs.

Big, it started out that way, where each Franchise had a feeder province or two. These days there are very few players that feed into a franchise from another province.

The way it works these days is a feeder province will have a player on loan during the Super XV whilst he is still officially contracted to the feeder province, as soon as his contract ends with the feeder province he signs for the franchise he has been playing for, but most of the best talent gets signed at Craven School, so those that do come from feeder provinces are the few that has slipped through the recruiting done by the wealthy provinces.

Lets just point out that the reason given for the reduction in the number of teams in the European cup was to reduce the number of games played. We all know the real reason was to make it easier for English teams to qualify for the q/f. those who say Edinburgh were not good enough remember its only 3 seasons ago they were in the QF.

Thus any expansion back to 24 to encompass the SA teams would be both hugely hypocritical and would go back to the situation of very few English teams qualifying and would be a huge slap in the face to the pro 12 teams. It will never happen for those reasons.

Hammer shows there are enough weeks - even if his rota wouldn't work with the money men. It could be made to work but it would be terrible for rugby. Fans simply couldn't afford to travel those distances so rugby would move away from fans enjoying each other's company in parochial rivalry to becoming armchair fans and interacting as forum warriors. There is no shared will from both parties to speak up and stop the money men just changing everything again with the next big tv offer.

It would be also pretty hard on the players coping with long flights and altitude changes. They would also have no time to acclimatise from winter to summer conditions, or the alternative being for players at the end of their hemisphere's season against players just starting out of pre-season.

Aukster, the European teams would travel long distance for one pool match only.

TJ wrote:Lets just point out that the reason given for the reduction in the number of teams in the European cup was to reduce the number of games played.  We all know the real reason was to make it easier for English teams to qualify for the q/f.  those who say Edinburgh were not good enough remember its only 3 seasons ago they were in the QF.

Thus any expansion back to 24 to encompass the SA teams would be both hugely hypocritical and would go back to the situation of very few English teams qualifying and would be a huge slap in the face to the pro 12 teams.  It will never happen for those reasons.  

Was it really? And they fell for that? Everyone plays the same number of games. Actually the French said early on that they wanted to reduce the number of games, or shift it back in the season, or something else so it didn't distract from the T14. But that was just the original talk from the French. The actual reason given was to 1) Make the top tier more competetive 2) Make more decent teams were in the second tier. Both these things happened, both would remain if the South Africans joined. But you bang that drum, bang it hard.

shuren34 wrote:We had a topic like that on a french forum. The majority of fans were favorable to South Africa joining Europe. (competitive teams, more money for everyone and a new country to discover) But the main problem was to merge our season. And here our priority is our Top 14, that's why we wish to have an international cup in one block contrary to the current Champions Cup. And to have a better calendar we would like to have only one tour. One year at home, next year away. Some people even wish to not have the 6 nations when it's the world cup year.
Unfortunately for us, I don't think IRB would aprouve South Africa playing with us because it would damage the rugby in New-Zealand and Australia. But if it was possible we would gladly welcome you.

Just want to say, welcome. Notice it's your second post and we don't have enough French input given how integral they are to our rugby. That sounds similar to what some of the English club owners want but I can't see it happening, especially the home or away international tours (the away side would massively lose out financially).

Also, this is being considered in relation to New Zealand and Australia dropping South Africa due to time zones (if they can generate enough money from Asian markets) so the IRB would possibly be happy.

I don't think any national RU would want the number of tours dropped as they are major money makers, and less tours to Europe would probably financially cripple SH rugby with the execption of SA, likewise SH tours bring in huge amounts of money for the NH nations.
AFAIK isn't the international revenue and associated TV rights, etc. what keeps NZ rugby in particular going?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Just want to say, welcome. Notice it's your second post and we don't have enough French input given how integral they are to our rugby.  That sounds similar to what some of the English club owners want but I can't see it happening, especially the home or away international tours (the away side would massively lose out financially).

Thanks for the welcome.
I don't say it will happening, I just say what a majority of rugby fan here would like. Ideally we would like one tour in one country only, like the old ones. But like you say it's too much money for the union, and it's even vital for professional rugby in countries like Australia, New-Zealand or the celtics nations. That's why we have a war here between our clubs (support by the fans) and the FFR.

HammerofThunor wrote:
Also, this is being considered in relation to New Zealand and Australia dropping South Africa due to time zones (if they can generate enough money from Asian markets) so the IRB would possibly be happy.

I'm sure the ARU and NZRU would drop South-Africa immediately if there was enough money in the asian market. But in my opinion these countries will generate enough dollars for the them to survive, when it will be snowing in Sahara.
And like these two nations are the two most influential Unions in the IRB, I don't think they will authorized us (South Africa, France and the rest of northen nations) to let them play alone.
So basically the SARFU can't leave the southern hemisphere.

Irish Londoner wrote:I don't think any national RU would want the number of tours dropped as they are major money makers, and less tours to Europe would probably financially cripple SH rugby with the execption of SA, likewise SH tours bring in huge amounts of money for the NH nations.
AFAIK isn't the international revenue and associated TV rights, etc. what keeps NZ rugby in particular going?

Of course they wouldn't want to reduce the number of tours. But here we have a fight of power between our Union and our League.
Our league prosper and have money and our Union is poor. And FFR have more and more problems to sell its tickets (of course the poor results of the national teams don't help). Last year no tv channel wanted to buy the tv rights of our tours in SH, because nobody watched them here.

Irish Londoner wrote:I can't see it happening for all the reasons above, but was wondering what Australia think they are going to get out of a league involving Asia - then it dawned on me.

The Aussies playing the long game here, and hope by getting cosy with the emerging Asian nations they'll eventually be able to garner enough IRB votes to weaken the scrum even further, reduce the number of players and finally get thier wish to turn the game into rugby league?

The Asian market is a myth, what were basically talking about when people refer to the Asian market is the Hong Kong sevens, and once a year in Japan they have the basic equivilent of the Oxford Vs Cambridge which attracts a lot of people. For the most part the top end Japanease club games attract 4,000-5,000 people, while some of these Japanease cities have 10-13 million people living in them! The massive mythical Japanease market pretty much died out when the football J League came into being, when that happened most of the interest and tv contracts dried up. The money in rugby basically comes from massive corporations funding a rugby club, if you look at all their club names they are named after corporations.

For example:

Toshiba Brave Lupus
Toyota Verblitz
Honda Heat
Yamaha Jubilo
Coca Cola West Red Sparks

Japanease rugby clubs certainly do not generate their own resources by huge tv contracts and sponsorship. There is no real tv money or sponsorship to be made there, certainly not in the numbers you get in Europe. Most clubs have a squad full of local players, or those from Korea, while having one or two journeymen South Africans, NewZealanders, islanders or Australians. Occasionally one of the bigger clubs may push the boat out to sign a big name, former international player in his mid 30's for a lot of money but it's actually quite rare.

Shifty wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:I can't see it happening for all the reasons above, but was wondering what Australia think they are going to get out of a league involving Asia - then it dawned on me.

The Aussies playing the long game here, and hope by getting cosy with the emerging Asian nations they'll eventually be able to garner enough IRB votes to weaken the scrum even further, reduce the number of players and finally get thier wish to turn the game into rugby league?

The Asian market is a myth, what were basically talking about when people refer to the Asian market is the Hong Kong sevens, and once a year in Japan they have the basic equivilent of the Oxford Vs Cambridge which attracts a lot of people.  For the most part the top end Japanease club games attract 4,000-5,000 people, while some of these Japanease cities have 10-13 million people living in them!  The massive mythical Japanease market pretty much died out when the football J League came into being, when that happened most of the interest and tv contracts dried up.  The money in rugby basically comes from massive corporations funding a rugby club, if you look at all their club names they are named after corporations.

For example:

Toshiba Brave Lupus
Toyota Verblitz
Honda Heat
Yamaha Jubilo
Coca Cola West Red Sparks

Japanease rugby clubs certainly do not generate their own resources by huge tv contracts and sponsorship.  There is no real tv money or sponsorship to be made there, certainly not in the numbers you get in Europe.  Most clubs have a squad full of local players, or those from Korea, while having one or two journeymen South Africans, NewZealanders, islanders or Australians.  Occasionally one of the bigger clubs may push the boat out to sign a big name, former international player in his mid 30's for a lot of money but it's actually quite rare.  

I remember saying that to some australian and kiwi fans last year on another forum, when they were wishing to drop South Africa.
They thought the level of boks rugby would fall if they were playing in Europe. And of course they couldn't understand they would be in a worse situation with an Asian-Pacific tournament.