• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
I didnt pay alot of attention, but know lots, and thought wow.
How long is Pocock Sabatical?
How much are we paying him whils he's not even playing?

I ask this using the reference to Elsom and a couple of others on the preceeding pack. I thinking we are shrinking because we are not feeding the right areas, and it's not necessarily about spilling coin.
Boys 10 - 18 dont get paid a salary to play.
 

Dismal Pillock

David Codey (61)
NZ Herald actually almost had an interesting article on this

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11807572
Any vote for change has to be unanimous so the expectation is strong that South Africa and Australia, no matter that they may talk about their desire for change, will vote against it for fear they might be the ones forced to make it.
But the twist in this sorry tale comes at the end, when after romping through the competition, New Zealand's teams, except one, will be rewarded with away quarterfinals as a deal done with broadcasters three years ago has ensured that two Africa sides have a free pass to the last eight.

re:meeting, still standing by original assessment of outcome from way back on page 238
NZ: Guys, we need to drop some of the shitty teams from this shitty competition and go back to a Super 12 or Super 15 round-robin format or some shit.
Arg: No.
Japan: No.
Aus: No.
SA: No.
NZ: Rightee-ho then let's hit the pub.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Read an interesting suggestion that Super Rugby should be controlled by a commission of club representatives and not the national governing bodies... Clubs would make decisions on the future and format of the game suited to what is best for them.

Could be bad, could be good, can't be any worse then the current situation
 

Scrubber2050

Mark Ella (57)
^^^^^
Only that you would have 18 members and not presumably 5.

Personally I am for smaller "government" not larger more unwieldy one
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
So no resolution. What a shock.

http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d9d9194c0d949218400c70b7f&id=3088261394

The SANZAAR Executive Committee (Exco) met in London on Friday 10 March to assess the economic and sporting environment under which its tournaments (Super Rugby and The Rugby Championship) are operating and to review the final steps of the strategic planning process that started in May last year.

"Following two days of robust discussion there are a number of tournament considerations that now require further discussion and consultation. This includes final consultation within the National Unions and discussion with key stakeholders that would allow the adoption of changes proposed by the strategic plan,” stated SANZAAR CEO Andy Marinos.

"SANZAAR will make a formal statement on the future of the organisation, Super Rugby and the tournament format in the coming days once these further meetings have been concluded," added Marinos.
 

half

Alan Cameron (40)
So no resolution. What a shock.

http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d9d9194c0d949218400c70b7f&id=3088261394

The SANZAAR Executive Committee (Exco) met in London on Friday 10 March to assess the economic and sporting environment under which its tournaments (Super Rugby and The Rugby Championship) are operating and to review the final steps of the strategic planning process that started in May last year.

"Following two days of robust discussion there are a number of tournament considerations that now require further discussion and consultation. This includes final consultation within the National Unions and discussion with key stakeholders that would allow the adoption of changes proposed by the strategic plan,” stated SANZAAR CEO Andy Marinos.

"SANZAAR will make a formal statement on the future of the organisation, Super Rugby and the tournament format in the coming days once these further meetings have been concluded," added Marinos.


I do wonder aloud if we could be the odd man out in the discussions.

All other countries have national domestic competitions and want to play international sides as they already play each other in their NDC.

We want Super Rugby to be our de-facto NDC.

Logic says they are right and logic also says they have the numbers. We have a veto power to argue our case.

No idea of the outcome,


What will I think decide this in the end I think is where the European ratings are going as Australian & NZ revenue streams are in relative terms across the competition are small.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
The fact that discussions went for so long suggests to me that multiple countries are keen for change and they now have to agree on what.

There was never going to be a resolution out of the first round of discussions because each stakeholder needs to hear what others want and then take it away for consideration.

You can guarantee that each delegate doesn't have carte blanche authority to make any decision they want on behalf of their union.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

No4918

John Hipwell (52)
I would hope they are down to a couple of options and just need to talk to each bodies union and I assume other stakeholders is just the broadcaster.

If cutting teams was off the table it would have been nice to see as much said. Dragging this out for teams like the Rebels and Force will be tough. Already struggling to get new signings and re-sign players, it will be very difficult for them to have success on and off the field for years.
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
There was never going to be a resolution out of the first round of discussions because each stakeholder needs to hear what others want and then take it away for consideration.

You can guarantee that each delegate doesn't have carte blanche authority to make any decision they want on behalf of their union.

It's not the first round of discussion. They met in November to work this out, couldn't reach an agreement so pushed it back until now. Presumably the various options have been known for a while and they've been in communication since then too.
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
I still not sure which way it will go however much I scratch my head, the 3 conference system is no doubt a real no in NZ, and probably Aus and SA don't want to drop teams.
NZRU won't want a system where the NZ teams (which most players say are intensity of a test match) kick shit out of each other all season, and then at end of it will probably still only get 2 teams in final series as will Aus and SA which on last couple of years would seem a bit unfair. I have actually heard NZ players say they would prefer only playing other NZ teams only once as it takes a too much out of you. Australia conference with the Sunwolves in would seem a fair bit easier, and I suspect the Saffas may damage each other a bit.
If Rebels or Force are dropped, could lose a fairly big chance of spreading the game, and Sunwolves I am sure add TV money, plus Jaguares should be there fot Argentine rugby's sake. So as I said I am beat at moment and can see why it so hard to come up with better idea.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
That would be mayhem. Zero chance of the governing bodies giving up control anyway.

Why though, there's plenty of examples of a commission made up by the clubs effectively managing their competitions. NFL/EPL/NBA etc....Super Rugby needs someone looking after the best interests of Super Rugby, at the moment it gets used as a pawn in the global politics of rugby, and it's why the competition is in the dire state it is.
 

Joe King

Dave Cowper (27)
I would hope they are down to a couple of options and just need to talk to each bodies union and I assume other stakeholders is just the broadcaster.

If cutting teams was off the table it would have been nice to see as much said. Dragging this out for teams like the Rebels and Force will be tough. Already struggling to get new signings and re-sign players, it will be very difficult for them to have success on and off the field for years.

They have said that they will make an announcement in the coming days, so must be pretty close.

"SANZAAR will make a formal statement on the future of the organisation, Super Rugby and the tournament format in the coming days once these further meetings have been concluded," added Marinos.

http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d9d9194c0d949218400c70b7f&id=3088261394
 

Joe King

Dave Cowper (27)
I still not sure which way it will go however much I scratch my head, the 3 conference system is no doubt a real no in NZ, and probably Aus and SA don't want to drop teams.
NZRU won't want a system where the NZ teams (which most players say are intensity of a test match) kick shit out of each other all season, and then at end of it will probably still only get 2 teams in final series as will Aus and SA which on last couple of years would seem a bit unfair. I have actually heard NZ players say they would prefer only playing other NZ teams only once as it takes a too much out of you. Australia conference with the Sunwolves in would seem a fair bit easier, and I suspect the Saffas may damage each other a bit.
If Rebels or Force are dropped, could lose a fairly big chance of spreading the game, and Sunwolves I am sure add TV money, plus Jaguares should be there fot Argentine rugby's sake. So as I said I am beat at moment and can see why it so hard to come up with better idea.


Yeah, I can see why NZ wouldn't want the 3x6 model for the reasons you've mentioned.

But if they did try it for the last few years of the current broadcast deal (just to see how it goes), I for one would be just as interested in the NZ conference as I would be in the Oz conference, because the NZ games are so good ATM.

But I'm not sure they would go for it, as you say.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Yeah, I can see why NZ wouldn't want the 3x6 model for the reasons you've mentioned.

But if they did try it for the last few years of the current broadcast deal (just to see how it goes), I for one would be just as interested in the NZ conference as I would be in the Oz conference, because the NZ games are so good ATM.

But I'm not sure they would go for it, as you say.


But it could be structured in such a way that could overcome there concerns. Divide the competition into 3 x 6 conferences. Each conference plays in conference rivals for 10 rounds. This would be used as a means of determining rankings 1-6. From there teams are split into a further three pools using those rankings for a further 5 games. Top 2 from each pool progresses through to finals.

In theory, if the 5 NZ franchises are in that top 6 then so be it.
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
But it could be structured in such a way that could overcome there concerns. Divide the competition into 3 x 6 conferences. Each conference plays in conference rivals for 10 rounds. This would be used as a means of determining rankings 1-6. From there teams are split into a further three pools using those rankings for a further 5 games. Top 2 from each pool progresses through to finals.

In theory, if the 5 NZ franchises are in that top 6 then so be it.

Apparently it is too hard to split conferences halfway through season because of travel arrangements, ground bookings etc etc.

I got an idea, have 2 conferences of 9 teams
Conf 1=3 teams from Aus,3 teams from NZ, 3 from SA
Conf 2 3 teams Aus, 3 teams NZ , 3 SA (I am including Sunwolves as an Aus team and Jaguares as kiwi team) as this is only 8 games, then play other teams from your country in other conference, would give every team 11 games and against other countries, then a 4 or 6 team final series.
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Actually I like that idea, I think you lot should all put in and pay me airfare to London so I can explain it to the Sanzaar committee;) And first class seat would be appreciated:D
 

zer0

Jim Lenehan (48)
The NZRU is gunning for a reduction down to teams. Presumably with the removal of one Australian and two South African sides.

Super Rugby will change next year and an Australian team could be in the firing line after it emerged New Zealand argued strongly for a reduction to a 15-team competition.

Reports out of New Zealand suggest the NZRU went into the Sanzaar meeting in London overnight on Friday with the strong position that Australia cut one team and South Africa cut two.

Given any change to the competition requires a unanimous vote, Australian Rugby Union officials Bill Pulver and Brett Robinson – or their South African counterparts – could have vetoed the NZRU position, but it is not known if they did or not.

South African Rugby is under severe financial pressure, but political influence is also strong, and it is not clear whether or not there was an appetite to cut one team, let alone two.

All national unions deferred to Sanzaar after the meeting. An official statement from the joint venture said a decision had been reached and would be announced in coming days.

Consultation will now be had with broadcasters in each territory, meaning Australian teams will remain in limbo until at least next week in regards to whether or not a team will be pulled from the competition.

"Following two days of robust discussion there are a number of tournament considerations that now require further discussion and consultation," said Sanzaar chief executive Andy Marinos. "This includes final consultation within the national unions and discussion with key stakeholders that would allow the adoption of changes proposed by the strategic plan.

"Sanzaar will make a formal statement on the future of the organisation, Super Rugby and the tournament format in the coming days once these further meetings have been concluded."

The Western Force, Melbourne Rebels and ACT Brumbies - the three franchises most likely to be axed - now face another frustrating period of uncertainty just when they thought they would get some closure.

While the ARU took two secret options into the meeting, Fairfax Media understands New Zealand's preference was for a 15-team competition whereby one Australian and two South African teams would be punted.

If NZR did in fact flex its muscle, and given all unions have to agree on the make-up of the competition, the ARU may have been left with no other option but to get rid of one of its teams.

However, for South Africa to give up two teams seems a little less likely given they pushed so hard to expand from five sides to six not long ago.

Overall though it was a positive meeting for Sanzaar given that all unions have agreed to change the convoluted Super Rugby model that confuses so many fans.

Sanzaar is yet to put forward any concrete information on how the format will look in 2018 but is in the process of speaking with broadcasters, including Fox Sports, to tweak the Super Rugby broadcast arrangement which was supposed to last until 2020.

An 18-team model could still get the green light, with the idea being to introduce a three-conference system consisting of six teams apiece, with Japan joining five Australian teams and Argentina linking up with the five New Zealand outfits.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...gby-teams-as-nz-rugby-demands-competition-cut
 

Marcelo

Ken Catchpole (46)
I support the idea of 5 OZ franchises, because you can have almost 200 hired players for Wallabies playing Super Rugby level but not at this cost. If the ARU don't have the money and depth to have 5 competitive franchises then is not the way. To attract companies to invest in Super Rugby you need succesfull teams or at least competitive teams, if your 5 teams are smashed by everybody, not only by the migthy Kiwis, then is not a sustainable format.

With the performances of 2016 and 2017, I suggest back to the 3 teams format. You need to be competitive to attract sponsors and new supporters or you can be the NZ Warriors of Super Rugby.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top