Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Interesting that it's SARU's CEO talking about lawyering up, SANZAAR's only ever mentions TRC these days........
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Pretty much, I guess. But presumably Sanzaar will still want to pull out stops to continue tests (TRC series or alternative method).
Broadcast deals, etc will need rejigging - but ZA and UAR would be in to some degree that is yet to be determined.
He's the Pope, mate.
Broadcast deals, etc will need rejigging - but ZA and UAR would be in to some degree that is yet to be determined.
Well Robbo can only annul NZR, so Aus and SA will be able to carry on.
He's the Pope, mate.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Have you not read the caveat attached to Aratipu? It's all just contingency planning in the event travel restrictions etc make the resumption of four-nation, 14-team Super Rugby impractical in 2021
Yes I realise that and I've mentioned that on a number of occasions, including in post #17288 (3 posts after the one you have quoted). I didn't think it was necessary to put that in every post on the topic as I thought we all realised that the planning was for 2021. Marinos has in fact made the point that SANZAAR are busily planning for a resumption of pan-continental Super Rugby in 2022.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
Yes I realise that and I've mentioned that on a number of occasions, including in post #17288 (3 posts after the one you have quoted). I didn't think it was necessary to put that in every post on the topic as I thought we all realised that the planning was for 2021. Marinos has in fact made the point that SANZAAR are busily planning for a resumption of pan-continental Super Rugby in 2022.
God I hope we disappoint him.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
So do I, but he's a persistent character is seems.
In a statement on Monday afternoon, SANZAAR moved to address what it described as "misleading information" about the tournament format going forward and said that all four SANZAAR nations were committed to be part of the organisation for the next decade.
"The stakeholders are all committed to the joint-venture through to 2030 and once consensus is agreed upon by all the stakeholders it will then be communicated by the SANZAAR Board," the statement read.
"As to the future competition structures in 2021 and beyond, SANZAAR has already sold to broadcasters a 14-team Super Rugby cross-border tournament format as well as the four-team Rugby Championship, within the stakeholder core markets.
"Again where any changes to these competitions is required, as a consequence of any ongoing affects of the COVID-19 pandemic, these will be decided upon by the SANZAAR board."
SANZAAR CEO Andy Marinos said there had been no agreement at the SANZAAR level about stand-alone Trans-Tasman competition models.
https://www.rugby.com.au/news/2020/05/04/sanzaar-super-rugby-2021
Dismal Pillock
Simon Poidevin (60)
Dismal Pillock
Simon Poidevin (60)
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Re: the rugby.com.au article quoted by QH, that's the first I've seen or heard of the SANZAAR agreement lasting beyond 2025, does anyone know when this happened? It also occurs to me that if thats the case SARU should be hosing down any & all speculation that more or all of their franchises will "head North" pre-2030. Not "everything's on the table" or "all options are being considered" just "no, ain't gunna happen 'cos we're committed through to 2030".
Also, if SARU believe they must be consulted re: "temporary" NZ, Australian or TT comps, what consultation have they carried out with NZR & RA re: the "temporary" Currie Cup expansion/ extension they're contemplating in the event Pro14 can't proceed as planned? I mean, if "we" can't go Trans Tasman without "their" say-so how can they go Trans Atlantic (Uruguay, Argentina) or Pan African (Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya) without ours?
Also, if SARU believe they must be consulted re: "temporary" NZ, Australian or TT comps, what consultation have they carried out with NZR & RA re: the "temporary" Currie Cup expansion/ extension they're contemplating in the event Pro14 can't proceed as planned? I mean, if "we" can't go Trans Tasman without "their" say-so how can they go Trans Atlantic (Uruguay, Argentina) or Pan African (Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya) without ours?
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...d-competition-invitation-20200723-p55ev4.html
Good to see Aus rugby growing a set, but geez its all getting a bit fantasy land, relocating an Argentinean side for the year (that'll come cheap) & the 2nd coming of the Sunwolves. Surely a 6 team domestic competition to begin with is a more sensible option.
And lots of people with money are interested talk, you do wonder where all these people have been.
Good to see Aus rugby growing a set, but geez its all getting a bit fantasy land, relocating an Argentinean side for the year (that'll come cheap) & the 2nd coming of the Sunwolves. Surely a 6 team domestic competition to begin with is a more sensible option.
And lots of people with money are interested talk, you do wonder where all these people have been.
Ignoto
Greg Davis (50)
Man, the parallels between the SANZAAR board and it's constituencies with a domestic violence case is uncanny. "I alone will decide what's best for this relationship"
But hypothetically, if Aus and NZ walk away, what do these boardroom guys do? Ok, they take RA and NZRU to court. Lets say they're either awarded something for a breach of contract and lets say both countries are able to pay such a fee.
Then what? SANZAAR just becomes SAAR? The Argentinean component is all but dusted with their players heading to Europe.
SANZAAR has lost all relevancy is the future. Similar to companies in the past who have failed to adopt what the future looks like, they're grasping to hold onto the past. The sooner they realise this and work with the respective national bodies the better off they'll be.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
"My preferred competition is trans-Tasman five and five...." McLennan said. How does that happen without RA & NZR actually, you know, talking about it?
Marinos surely has to keep doing his job until he no longer has that job or is instructed otherwise.
What will be interesting is where Argentina stands on the whole issue. Would they be happy for Super Rugby to end and for them to join with MLR or something in South America but retain participation in the Rugby Championship?
Likewise, do South Africa really want to continue with Super Rugby in its present form? They to could easily decide that they just want the test rugby but Super Rugby is no longer working for them either and they want to play with Europe more.
A SANZAAR agreement is still in place but it seems like it would be easily changed if the members made it clear that certain aspects were no longer palatable.
I feel like you're making SANZAAR out to be some independent entity that it isn't. Marinos is the CEO but the board are two members each of the four member boards. Ultimately they can get together and sack Marinos and also completely change what SANZAAR is doing. He can't unilaterally change what SANZAAR is doing without the board agreeing and none of the members are going to take a position to the board until they have a solid plan for what they want.
What will be interesting is where Argentina stands on the whole issue. Would they be happy for Super Rugby to end and for them to join with MLR or something in South America but retain participation in the Rugby Championship?
Likewise, do South Africa really want to continue with Super Rugby in its present form? They to could easily decide that they just want the test rugby but Super Rugby is no longer working for them either and they want to play with Europe more.
A SANZAAR agreement is still in place but it seems like it would be easily changed if the members made it clear that certain aspects were no longer palatable.
I feel like you're making SANZAAR out to be some independent entity that it isn't. Marinos is the CEO but the board are two members each of the four member boards. Ultimately they can get together and sack Marinos and also completely change what SANZAAR is doing. He can't unilaterally change what SANZAAR is doing without the board agreeing and none of the members are going to take a position to the board until they have a solid plan for what they want.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Think he is talking, but just through the papers, may not like doing it face to face? I really think that is everyone's perferred comp , 5 competitive and financial team from each country surely.
Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
There is only two options I see will eventuate;
1) 10 team trans-tasman with an 11th team added for 2022. The 5 Aus teams will only be allowed on the provision that 2-3 imports of Super Rugby standards are to be proactively added to the squads to improve the standard (eg. Argentinian or South African super rugby standard players)
2) Both SRAU and SRNZ will continue to exist, but a Champions League type comp with Japanese teams from the Top League will be made to offer extra content.
Personally I think option 2 is the best as it still has a National champion to celebrate but believe option 1 would be the lowest odds available at the TAB. It makes the most sense and is the right compromise without anyone having to sacrifice anything overly significant
1) 10 team trans-tasman with an 11th team added for 2022. The 5 Aus teams will only be allowed on the provision that 2-3 imports of Super Rugby standards are to be proactively added to the squads to improve the standard (eg. Argentinian or South African super rugby standard players)
2) Both SRAU and SRNZ will continue to exist, but a Champions League type comp with Japanese teams from the Top League will be made to offer extra content.
Personally I think option 2 is the best as it still has a National champion to celebrate but believe option 1 would be the lowest odds available at the TAB. It makes the most sense and is the right compromise without anyone having to sacrifice anything overly significant
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
It would presumably be South Africa taking NZ and RA to court for any revenue lost as a result of the breach, for example, if they had a TV deal contingent on the continuance of the joint venture. SANZAAR may be irrelevant but it seems completely plausible that any breakaway union may be taken to the cleaners for their breach (unless there are mitigating circumstances, for example, on going Covid restrictions)
Edit: i would have thought the above scenario unlikely as the obvious solution is the unions to agree to go their own way at Super Rugby level (which would make sense at this stage) but retain the RC (the major componentoof the SANZAAR relationship. But given the way everyone is acting who the fuck knows.
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
Both Unions are acting like petulant children. Its fucking ridiculous.
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
It would be fairly insane not to have binding agreements in place for a 5-10 year joint venture worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Dismal Pillock
Simon Poidevin (60)
"Yes, Mr Marinos, when we give a fuck about the Lions
and the Cheetahs and their 'mummy, mummy, conference
playoff-berth please' bullshit again we'll let you know."
- Status