Springbok-mania has taken hold - Boks to join the 6 Nations????

Yes, I know the article from The Telegraph is just repeating the thoughts and/or wishful thinking of the Sharks Chief Exec, but it does seem like a reasonable progression.  The article is below:

South Africa 'definitely' joining Six Nations, says Sharks chief executive
by Gavin Mairs, in Cape Town

The Springboks will "definitely" join the Six Nations following the investment of private equity firm CVC in the championship, a leading South African administrator has claimed.

The leading South African sides have already agreed to join the Pro 14 clubs next season to form the United Rugby Championship and it is expected to be confirmed in the next two weeks that they will also take part in the European Challenge Cup next season, which could see the likes of Saracens drawn against the Stormers, Bulls, Sharks and Lions from December.

Ed Coetzee, the chief executive of the Sharks which are promoted by Jay Z's Roc Nation sports agency, believes it is now inevitable that the Springboks will also look to Europe for their international competition.

This year’s Rugby Championship already looks doomed after an eight-week travel ban between Australia and New Zealand was imposed on Friday because of the pandemic restrictions.

When asked if South Africa will join the Six Nations, Coetzee said: "I think it will definitely happen. I think if we asked them now, they would say never.

"But if we also asked them if we would play in Europe, they would have said never.

“So I think it is a natural progression - it's bound to happen. I think there might be a promotion and relegation. I think Georgia are also pushing hard and Italy haven't been great.

"You have the likes of private-equity guys, CVC, coming into rugby and they are not coming in to lose money. They want commercially sound, scalable competitions - it just makes sense.

"The only thing we have in common with New Zealand and Australia is that we are in the southern hemisphere. There is about a 15-hour journey to Sydney - how do you compete?”

The original plan for the South African franchises was to join the European Champions Cup from 2022, but Coetzee said they would now go straight into the Challenge Cup.

“It is really exciting,” added Coetzee. “We want to be sustainably successful in Europe, that is where we want to be. We have to earn the right to play there.”

not chance IMO

My thoughts are that SANZAAR is dead just no one knows it yet. So that the post isn't to long I will break up the posts.

If the RC was scraped this year I could see SA and Georgia being invited to the 6Ns (playing all teams at the home of the 6Ns) because the 6Ns need money as do everyone else and it would be sold as a once off because of Covid. After the WC it could then go to an 8N with no rests and all in the 7week period with promotion relegation playoff to a 8NB tournament with the relegated team getting a parachute payment.

8NB would be most likely Rominia, Russia, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Namibia and maybe Belgium, Germany, Zimbabwe, Kenya or Mozambique

It will happen for politics

Euro has 50% of the Nations in Rugby at every level add in Africa some of which were part of Europe such as Morocco

If you take it one of four things will happen with WR votes
1. They stay at 51 - Sa+6N=21 Geo&Rom=2 Regionals=4 total=27
2. Every T2 comp team gets 1 vote - Europe and Africa will get more increasing the majority
3. Every Nation gets a vote - Europe already has 50% of the members so with Africa would have more than 60%
4. Every country with a professional home based team get a vote - Europe with the new Super Cup will have professional teams in Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Isreal, Russia, Georgia and Romania.  The SARU has an 11 year agreement with Georgia and also has deals with Nambia and Zimbabwe for teams in club competitions so doesn't take much to add more nations.

So politically with an alliance between SA and 6Ns it will happen because it gives them ultimate control.

Would that be good for world rugby as a whole though?

Haven’t followed cricket for some time, How has it turned out for cricket worldwide with Aus, England and India controlling cricket?

This obviously going to happen, more of when, not if. Its an obvious ploy, get their franchises up here, then get the national side a part of the cash cow that is the 6N.

I for one would welcome them in.

Aus and NZ will be very pissed. We are not their favourite already

Old Man wrote:Aus and NZ will be very pissed. We are not their favourite already

South Africa have been keeping them afloat for years, perhaps they could do their own 7N's with Japan, Argentina, Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga.

This way, SA would have more money to keep their players in SA and stop other nations poaching them, and the Island nations would have more money to stop other countries poaching their players.

A win win all round.

Private Equity & Money.

CVC have a share in Europe and soon to be SA. Once they explain the benefits it will happen.

CVC will then control the Europe & Africa Region.

With Sliver Lake looking to take control in NZ & Oz they will either go for the Pacific and maybe America or America will continue its alignment between N & S. With the current American 6N and SLAR & MLR which provides growth and standards for USA, Canada and Uraguary.

All the money and realistic near growth in Rugby is in Europe and Africa.

CVC will want to expand into these markets rather than chase saturated rugby markets like the PIs or to much effort like Latin America or Aisa.

CVC has Eastern Euro Contacts from F1 so will look to tap into the work already done. Add in that CVC investing in SARU says they need to grow the African markets like Nambia, Zimbabwe (If they dare) and Madagascar (lots of talent but no money).

Like we are seeing where the Geogians are going to have a professional squad based at home playing in the European Super Cup (MLR of European T2 for budget size). In order for CVC to get the most out of their money they will join up Africa and Europe in competitions. CVC are already lining things up with the 4 SA teams straight into the Challange Cup this year with the backing of their two leagues. Expect more of this at Club and International level.

I think this would turn a lot of Rugby on its head. Not just adding one of Rugby's heavyweights to the Six Nations.

But also what happens to the June internationals? The unique nature of travelling to SA would be different. Then there would only be Argentina, NZ, and Aus as major Rugby nations with whom there are not regular fixtures for Six Nations teams in the Southern Hemisphere. The knock-on impact will be interesting to watch.

This said, I would like to see a move like this.

Quaility, Travel & Time

If the RC is to fulfill it purpose of being financially viable for each team and provide good games it is going to run into 3 problems where one leads to the next problem.

Quaility
1. The RC either grows the pie or dies.  To grow the pie they need to add Japan and probably Fiji.  They can't have a 10 game home and away and playing Japan instead of one of the new teams reduces the match quaility.
2. Fans as it is don't turn up amazingly for non key games.  If Oz struggle to get 20k for Argentina will they get 15 for Japan.
3. No country is going to sign up to swap a NZ home game for a Japan home game.

Travel.
1. Adding in Japan for Argentina and South Africa is like adding in OZ and NZ to the 6Nations.  No way they would want that and the players would not like it either.
2. We saw the issues with the Sunwolves and SA in SR

Time.
1. The TT teams have to much but Argentina and SA have to little. SR/TT will either have 10+6 regular games or 22 if one league.  Because of Europe the other two nations will have 18-26+6 games.
2. NZ & Oz need more international to prop up a loss making domestic game so they will look to play more internationals such as a Pacific Cup.
3. SA and Argentina will have less burden on wages as Argentina won't have any and SA will have more money not less.

This leads me to believe that SA would be against adding Japan and in favour of moving the RC to 6N slot as it means the Currie Cup would not have the RC in its way and be during the NH summer break. If SA blocks Japan and Fiji can SANZAAR added them, if they kick SA out then like SR SA would find a new home the next day "for the good of the game" so it's a o win for the TT nations

Add in that for SA to move North they would have home games in the AIs.  Because of the distance from Europe NZ and Oz would have to do a 3 game tour of SA each WC cycle as SA would pay good money to tour maybe more than Euro counties, that would bring in nice money each cycle.  I think SA fans would rather this than RC each year. Add in that the URC teams might lpay mid week games as the URC would be off and NZ public would like it just as SA fans would like SA A playing Crusaders etc.

doctor_grey wrote:I think this would turn a lot of Rugby on its head.  Not just adding one of Rugby's heavyweights to the Six Nations.  

But also what happens to the June internationals?  The unique nature of travelling to SA would be different.  Then there would only be Argentina, NZ, and Aus as major Rugby nations with whom there are not regular fixtures for Six Nations teams in the Southern Hemisphere.  The knock-on impact will be interesting to watch.  

This said, I would like to see a move like this.

The 7 Nations would do the following
SA would do a tour to Oz and NZ each WC cycle because of money. NZRU would make more from an SA team visiting with all the bad blood from the breakup than anything else. It would nearly be like another Lions Tour.
The third year they would alternate between Argentina and Japan.

For the 7 teams the destinations would be
1. NZ
2. Oz
3. Argentina
4. Japan
5. Fiji
6. N. America
7. Samoa/Tonga (would need WR funding)
8. Uaraguy

Old Man wrote:Aus and NZ will be very pissed. We are not their favourite already

Sells more tickets when the tours are on to those countries. You can see it now the adverts in NZ of Hells Giants coming to kill everyone and the brave ABs in suits of amour bravely standing up to them.

NZ and Oz are stuck. They can't let SA stop them from growing their international pie but can't allow them to wak away from them as SA is their cash cow. Without SA the RC becomes the Cops America of score. You see the results but don't care about the team.

SARU is paid to make SA rugby it's best and that's all that will matter

I think in its heyday about 10-15 years ago Super Rugby was the best Rugby club competition.  However, as some of us have noted already, it has appeared stale for a while.  The expansion didn't help, though I can't fault them for trying.  

When Covid hit, it seems to me that NZ followed by Aus decided to end Super Rugby as we knew it and turned inward.  Some of that was obviously driven by Covid restrictions but some by not liking the current competition.  

SA needed somewhere to play and also make some R, €, £, $.  Given the significantly less stressful flights to the UK, Ireland, or Europe, SA teams playing up north makes a lot more sense.  And if the clubs can go north, so can the Boks, a natural progression which, to me, makes sense as well.  

Only thing left to see is if it works.  But it surely fails if there is no attempt..

You have to say that NZ and Aus have only brought this on themselves by being based in the back of beyond. A bit of forward planning a few millennia ago and they would have been sorted.

Cyril wrote:You have to say that NZ and Aus have only brought this on themselves by being based in the back of beyond. A bit of forward planning a few millennia ago and they would have been sorted.

Oz supports the NRL or AFL fine. The problem is RA never bothered to build the second level under Super Rugby and now they do but NZ don't want to invest the time now. Never built when the time was good and can't when it's bad.

Bit of a ‘whoosh’ moment there, Brendan

doctor_grey wrote:I think in its heyday about 10-15 years ago Super Rugby was the best Rugby club competition.  However, as some of us have noted already, it has appeared stale for a while.  The expansion didn't help, though I can't fault them for trying.  

When Covid hit, it seems to me that NZ followed by Aus decided to end Super Rugby as we knew it and turned inward.  Some of that was obviously driven by Covid restrictions but some by not liking the current competition.  

SA needed somewhere to play and also make some R, €, £, $.  Given the significantly less stressful flights to the UK, Ireland, or Europe, SA teams playing up north makes a lot more sense.  And if the clubs can go north, so can the Boks, a natural progression which, to me, makes sense as well.  

Only thing left to see is if it works.  But it surely fails if there is no attempt..

Always thought it would have made more sense for Argentinian teams to play in Europe. Only a 3 hour time difference.

Argentina get regularly smashed by NH sides home and away though. England beat them away with a 2nd/3rd string a few years ago,

Well they smashed Wales last week and they are definitely better than Italy and Scotland but I was really thinking of the Jaguares.

Collapse2005 wrote:Well they smashed Wales last week and they are definitely better than Italy and Scotland but I was really thinking of the Jaguares.

They use to be better than Scotland not sure they are now. Yes they beat Wales who played far from their best team. The same Argentina just got past a Rominia team that is average in the B6N.

Jaguares were great for the Jaguares but bad for Argentina. Having their players not in Europe made them weaker.

Argentina firsts, smashed a Wales 2/3 team. It’s not a result they should take much from. Pivac screwed up the second test, by giving players chances etc.

Brendan wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Well they smashed Wales last week and they are definitely better than Italy and Scotland but I was really thinking of the Jaguares.

They use to be better than Scotland not sure they are now.  Yes they beat Wales who played far from their best team.  The same Argentina just got past a Rominia team that is average in the B6N.

Jaguares were great for the Jaguares but bad for Argentina.  Having their players not in Europe made them weaker.

Yeah and before the Romania game two draws v Australia, a win v NZ and one loss. Not sure Scotland nor even Wales would have done as well with that fixture list.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Well they smashed Wales last week and they are definitely better than Italy and Scotland but I was really thinking of the Jaguares.

They use to be better than Scotland not sure they are now.  Yes they beat Wales who played far from their best team.  The same Argentina just got past a Rominia team that is average in the B6N.

Jaguares were great for the Jaguares but bad for Argentina.  Having their players not in Europe made them weaker.

Yeah and before the Romania game two draws v Australia, a win v NZ and one loss. Not sure Scotland nor even Wales would have done as well with that fixture list.

Going off Scotland's results in the 6 Nations and France's recent games against Australia I think that Scotland could get two draws against Oz. Last time Scotland played the ABs it was close and the Scottish Lions seem to be doing fine on tour.

To be honest though we have no idea where Oz and NZ really are but Scotland did ok against the two of them last time they played.

Argentina recently beat a full strength NZ team. Pushed them up the rankings

https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/rankings/mru looks about right to me as a scots fan

SA are not going to join the 6N. Pie in the sky.

Do the Lions games affect the rankings? Thats a huge lead South Africa have for not playing for so long. Anything that can reduce that would be appreciated

Nope we are safe until NZ, OZ and Argentina trick us up 

Shame

Anyway, can't see it in the posts so if it has been asked apologies, but if South Africa joined the Six Nations would they lose the Lions tours?

Not much point in playing them as a country each in Feb/ March and then combining to play them in a July. Even if it is only once every 12 years.

TJ wrote:
Argentina recently beat a full strength NZ team.  Pushed them up the rankings

https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/rankings/mru  looks about right to me as a scots fan

SA are not going to join the 6N.  Pie in the sky.  

I’m sure a lot of people said that about their club sides joining an NH league. But they did. So stranger things have happened.

From my perspective if SA joins the six nation there will be a lot of “aftermath” debris.

What happens to Italy, will they just accept being kicked out of the Six nations and stay in the URC?
What happens to OZ and NZ financially?
Will Wales and Scotland and the others want to play SA in the six nations?
How will the June and November tours work, does SA now get away June series which is their traditional rugby season and have home tours in their traditional non rugby season athome when its hot?

Why would Italy be kicked out? 7 too many?

I don’t know, just asking

The Oracle wrote:Why would Italy be kicked out?  7 too many?

I was thinking about this the other day. What drives any of these events is not results or quality but revenue. As long as Italy are not walk overs (and they are not, although they don't win much) and they bring broadcast revenue, well healed fans and nice awaydays for home nation fans they are completely safe. If you stop selling out Italy games it might make a difference, but there is no way on earth that say Georgia, for instance, could replace what Italy bring in that respect.

If SA join it will be as well as not instead of.

7 is too many. I believe the SRU are dead set against the idea

TJ wrote:7 is too many.  I believe the SRU are dead set against the idea

I guess we could always drop the scots

Would be interesting if both SA and Georgia joined, Italy need someone to beat right? I'm not sure how it would work though, or how it would fit in.

How many weeks are the six nations currently with rest weeks?

I think there is 3 rest weeks in total, I believe the French clubs are the ones who demanded that.

so nine weeks in total?

Are the national team players unavailable for the whole nine weeks for clubs?

Old Man wrote:so nine weeks in total?

Are the national team players unavailable for the whole nine weeks for clubs?

Only some fringe players, or ones who need game time return to the others. Those playing for French clubs usually return there during the 6N break.

Old Man wrote:How many weeks are the six nations currently with rest weeks?

There are 2 rest weeks Old man

the format is

Week 1 - Games
Week 2 - Games
Week 3 - Rest week
Week 4 - Games
Week 5 - Rest week
Week 6 - Games
Week 7 - Games

I think the English players are in camp the weekend before the first game too - not sure about anyone else.

World Rugby would have to agree further international windows if you increased the number of teams. Currently the rest weekends aren't covered are they hence why Exeter can recall Hogg. Can't see how extending the window would fit with WR's aims around player wellness.

No 7&1/2 wrote:World Rugby would have to agree further international windows if you increased the number of teams. Currently the rest weekends aren't covered are they hence why Exeter can recall Hogg. Can't see how extending the window would fit with WR's aims around player wellness.

?????

If SA were disciplined like NH teams are then they would be down to 13 most games.

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:World Rugby would have to agree further international windows if you increased the number of teams. Currently the rest weekends aren't covered are they hence why Exeter can recall Hogg. Can't see how extending the window would fit with WR's aims around player wellness.

?????

We hear quite a lot that international rugby is a step up phyically, given that it seems at odds to the player wellness they are pushing. I think the push back from clubs would be enough to stop it anyway.

TightHEAD wrote:If SA were disciplined like NH teams are then they would be down to 13 most games.

It is very rare when the Springboks play more than 13 tests a year.

Do players like Hogg etc returning to their clubs down to not having an international game that weekend. My understanding is that the 7 weeks is all the international window.

It is my opinion for the WC failures by NH teams is due to the rest weeks in the 6N.   6N players 5 game weekends and 2 rest weeks traveling maybe 5 hours by plane for Italy.  RC play in about the same time but travel much further between games.  When it comes to the WC the 6N teams struggle to keep going.  If an 8 nation was 7 straight weeks like a WC the NH team would be better prepared when it came to knockout unlike the current 6N format

Easy format is top 4 play bottom 4 from the previous year in first 4 weeks which would allow squad rotation like WC group stages.  Last three weeks would be the top 4 teams playing each other which would be standard of the knockouts.  The bottom 4 teams would also be very competitive

From last 6Ns
Top 4
SA
Wales
Francs
Ireland

Bottom 4
England
Scotland
Italy
Georgia

For a team like England in the bottom half would have to hit the ground running and that would also benefit them.  If they did good against the top 4 then the last three games could allow them to bring on some players. It would be like a 200m race where only in the final straight would you know who is finishing where.

Old Man wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:If SA were disciplined like NH teams are then they would be down to 13 most games.

It is very rare when the Springboks play more than 13 tests a year.

Oz and NZ seem to play nearlh as many internationals as their SR teams.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:World Rugby would have to agree further international windows if you increased the number of teams. Currently the rest weekends aren't covered are they hence why Exeter can recall Hogg. Can't see how extending the window would fit with WR's aims around player wellness.

?????

We hear quite a lot that international rugby is a step up phyically, given that it seems at odds to the player wellness they are pushing. I think the push back from clubs would be enough to stop it anyway.

Agree. It seems to me that World Rugby is still paying, at least, partial lip service to player welfare. To bring in the Boks, which I would like, will take more than simply extending the international windows.