• 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.

Exit from Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tip

Guest
Benaud said:
But that design flaw isn't quite as advantageous for them under the new finals system, where they'll still have to win 3 consecutive finals matches to take out the competition, rather than just 2.
Click to expand...
Except in all likelihood the two SA conference leaders will be seeded 1 & 2 considering they get to play the Lions, Kings & 2 other makeshift teams twice.

Which means 9 times out of 10, they'll have 3 games in a row in SA. Hardly fair imo
 
Sully

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
Super Rugby Competition Structure.jpg
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
I am struggling to understand why there is so much hate over this new comp idea, and blaming it all supposedly on the Saffas. We all fondly remember how much we enjoyed the S12 suddenly and at that stage Aus needed extra teams in comp, we had shit from Force for a few years, and Rebels didn't really set comp alight at first, now suddenly the whole comp has turned to shit because SA wanted/needed another team?? And ok some of the SA teams might be struggling at moment, but lets remember the bottom team early on were Crusaders, it changes people!! Me thinks memories are a bit short and too much finger pointing could be happening.
 
TahDan

TahDan

Cyril Towers (30)
Dan54 said:
I am struggling to understand why there is so much hate over this new comp idea, and blaming it all supposedly on the Saffas. We all fondly remember how much we enjoyed the S12 suddenly and at that stage Aus needed extra teams in comp, we had shit from Force for a few years, and Rebels didn't really set comp alight at first, now suddenly the whole comp has turned to shit because SA wanted/needed another team?? And ok some of the SA teams might be struggling at moment, but lets remember the bottom team early on were Crusaders, it changes people!! Me thinks memories are a bit short and too much finger pointing could be happening.
Click to expand...


Mate, it's really not the same thing... Expansion up until this point has been about slowly making the number of teams in each country/conference equal and therefore providing a bit of symmetry.

This is different to adding the Southern Kings, which is a purely political move, and then randomly basing an Argentinian team in South Africa, along with some other random side.

It turns a neat competition into a messy, overly politicised and unnecessarily convoluted one.

People already have no idea where half the teams are from thanks to the removal of geographical references in their titles, and adding a couple teams from other countries just seems silly.

If they really wanted to be consistent and expand to 18 teams logically, they should have given the Argentinians all 3 extra teams and let them play in Argentina so that it could actually grow the game there.

But that would have added a whole new layer of travel complexities and wouldn't have appeased the SARU.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
TahDan said:
People already have no idea where half the teams are from thanks to the removal of geographical references in their titles, and adding a couple teams from other countries just seems silly.
Click to expand...

For some reason Super Rugby made a conscious decision to do this and I think most fans disagree with it.

I'm not sure why they don't reverse it and go back to having teams with the location in the name.
 
TahDan

TahDan

Cyril Towers (30)
Braveheart81 said:
For some reason Super Rugby made a conscious decision to do this and I think most fans disagree with it.

I'm not sure why they don't reverse it and go back to having teams with the location in the name.
Click to expand...


I believe the thinking was that by making them seemingly geographically disembodied as a brand, it would be easier to build a wider fan-base.

The idea was clearly built on some pretty poorly thought out logic and with no reference to actually successful global sporting brands...

I make no secret of my personal distaste for 90% of the international fans of the top 4 EPL sides, but whatever else you might say about them, the clear regional association built into their very names hasn't exactly hampered them...
 
Blue

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Pfitzy

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Scotty Stevenson is a funny fucker, and that's worth a lot more than some of the shitbirds who try "analysis" and fail miserably in any country.
 
Blue

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
TahDan said:
Mate, it's really not the same thing. Expansion up until this point has been about slowly making the number of teams in each country/conference equal and therefore providing a bit of symmetry.

This is different to adding the Southern Kings, which is a purely political move, and then randomly basing an Argentinian team in South Africa, along with some other random side.

It turns a neat competition into a messy, overly politicised and unnecessarily convoluted one.
Click to expand...

What did we expect when three messy, politicised partners sit around a table to agree something? A nice clean solution that appeals to everyone?

Considering that all the talk of a divorce was just speculation all along, this is about as good as it could get.

It's going to be a lot of meh until the final 8 but then it gets exciting. More exciting than the current finals series I reckon.

Someone who does not know where the Stormers or Chiefs are based was never going to be a real rugby fan anyway. Seriously if you are just a little bit interested in rugby and read one article in the paper on a Saturday you would know all the teams locations after 15 years of this comp. Or you are just fucking stupid / suffer from amnesia / both.

If you don't, it means you were never really interested in Rugby or you are so parochial that you just don't give a shit. It's a lame argument that the comp is at fault. This is why the NRL and AFL are so successful. You just need to remember that a few suburbs exist in Sydney or Melbourne and you have the whole picture.

I feel so sorry for people that this horrible comp saddles them with an insurmountable challenge of geography. Godforbid they should fire up half a braincell now and then or actually read the papers.

Pathetic excuse.
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Mind you one good thing I can see from this scenario, and I think may have a lot to do with how conferences are to be set, next expansion will no doubt be to 20 teams, both can go into SA conference (hopefully at least one will be Argie) and NZ/Aus conf can stay settled!! Getting more positives all the time!!
 
rugbysmartarse

rugbysmartarse

Alan Cameron (40)
Dan54 said:
I am struggling to understand why there is so much hate over this new comp idea, and blaming it all supposedly on the Saffas. We all fondly remember how much we enjoyed the S12 suddenly and at that stage Aus needed extra teams in comp, we had shit from Force for a few years, and Rebels didn't really set comp alight at first, now suddenly the whole comp has turned to shit because SA wanted/needed another team?? And ok some of the SA teams might be struggling at moment, but lets remember the bottom team early on were Crusaders, it changes people!! Me thinks memories are a bit short and too much finger pointing could be happening.
Click to expand...

I don't begrudge the SARU wanting a 6th team (much) but I don't like that we are getting further and further from a comp where we see every team play each other. Is it still the same comp when the sharks wont play the saders, the tahs miss playing the bulls, and the stormers dont play the reds except for once every 3 or 4 years?
 
TahDan

TahDan

Cyril Towers (30)
Blue said:
What did we expect when three messy, politicised partners sit around a table to agree something? A nice clean solution that appeals to everyone?

Considering that all the talk of a divorce was just speculation all along, this is about as good as it could get.
Click to expand...


You really think so? I reckon the status quo would have been far better in all honesty... I kinda like the competition as it stands right now, and don't really see the value in trying to invent a random team in Singapore or Spain. I think Argentina need more attention, but I would have liked to see them get all 3 teams and work toward a Super 20 over the next decade or so.

I'm still trying to work out who'll be going to the games of the Argentinian side if they're based in South Africa.

Blue said:
Someone who does not know where the Stormers or Chiefs are based was never going to be a real rugby fan anyway. Seriously if you are just a little bit interested in rugby and read one article in the paper on a Saturday you would know all the teams locations after 15 years of this comp. Or you are just fucking stupid / suffer from amnesia / both.
Click to expand...

Welcome to humanity; people are lazy. But in reality, the people who were the most fucking stupid of the lot are the bright sparks that decided the teams ought only to be known by their mascots.

Seriously dumb and lazy work. Of all the most successful sporting brands in the history of the world I can't think of one where that doesn't represent some region with its name.

People connect with places and people, not abstract mascots. It's not fucking rocket science.
 
B

BaysideBird

Bill Watson (15)
Blue said:
Nobody except SARU and the Kings wants another team and I mean nobody.

SARU is an immensely dysfunctional organisation which has made petty infighting into an art form.

There is no logic to wanting another team other than putting out internal political fires and because of favours owed.

The franchises themselves are cesspools of politics and often they cannot see eye to eye. The Bulls tried to get two opensides from feeder Unions who told them to piss off. So they end up playing a very average number 8 at open side when they could be giving tow excellent young players a chance and compete better as a team.

New Zealand appears to have enough unity to say this is how we want to run contracting, and we are happy with the teams we have. SA is on the other end of the scale. There will always be some new fluffybunny with an agenda who stirs up support with enough disenfranchised parties to cause shit.

It's an irreparable fuckup of gargantuan proportions.

We are starting to see the fruits of SARU and it's Unions labour. The Super team are not performing, there is no depth, and players are leaving in a steady stream.

The dysfunctionality in the Stormers / WP setup is epic. That organisations is sick to the core. That this coach can still have a job when he has been shown time and time again to be stuck in a defensively minded time warp is astounding. NOWHERE else in ANY sport would I guy like that keep his job.

Now they bring in a director of rugby but he is not allowed to do anything until next year :)
Click to expand...

http://www.superxv.com/news/super15_rugby_news.asp?id=34796#.U2MSHrVArIU

FROM RUGBY HEAVEN
Hawke's Bay have pulled the plug on a short-lived bid to become Super Rugby's 15th franchise but not before a little dig at the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU).
Hawke's Bay Rugby Union (HBRU) chairman Richard Hunt said on Thursday the union had been afforded too little time to put up a credible case.
HBRU also had received a strong signal from the NZRU that its bid was unlikely to succeed.
"We are unsure of the reason for this," he added.
Hunt also released a copy of a letter the union wrote to NZRU chairman Jock Hobbs late last month outlining its discomfort over the whole exercise.
"The HBRU has some serious concerns about the basis on which it was invited to register an expression of interest to be a Super Rugby franchise," Hunt wrote to Hobbs.
"Our union is and remains very serious about its intention to be a contender for hosting a Super Rugby franchise both now and in the future.
"However, we believe the timelines that are in place for a credible application of such magnitude are not sufficient to enable a proper professional business case to be submitted."
NZRU general manager professional rugby Neil Sorensen had written a letter to the Hawke's Bay union in early July giving them just seven business days to compile substantial amounts of information in order to build a credible business case regarding the hosting of a franchise.
Such a severe deadline meant it was impossible for that to be undertaken.
Hunt said Sorensen went on to say: "I also need to remind you that the NZRU has endeavoured to make it clear that it does not currently favour a sixth team based in New Zealand and that the board will take some convincing that that is not still the case."
Hunt said his union had never been given any solid reasons why that stance was deemed appropriate or whether it was based on "well researched and supported fact or on opinion."
The NZRU understood Hawke's Bay union's disappointment," Sorenson said on Thursday.
"However, all of the interested parties in New Zealand were advised well ahead of the process that the process would impose a tight timeframe on responses and that detailed business cases were required to support an expression of interest," he said.
© 2009 NZPA

So both Hawkes Bay and Taranaki are very interested in Super Rugby. NZRU does not currently want it, but some of the 'unrepresented unions' want a new franchise. However for it to be successful I believe it needs to be a collection of these provinces buying into it. The smaller non-Super Rugby unions believe that the bigger unions (Auckland, Wellington & Canterbury) don't look after them. The Chiefs have the best setup in regards to partnership, with Waikato and BOP cooperating very well with a good help from Counties. And as a question of depth, New Zealand seem to have another 30-40 players who are second string Super Rugby, or NPC players that are good enough to play, like Marty Banks (Tasman), Ihaia West, Ash Dixon, Mark Abbot (Hawkes Bay), Ma'afu Fia (Manawatu), Jamison Gibson-Park, Waisake Naholo and Kurt Baker (Taranaki).
 
Sully

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
My biggest beef with the set up is South Africa getting two automatic entries into the finals. This clearly isn't a fair way of doing things in my opinion.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
The problem with Hawke's Bay is that the entire region only has a population of 150k and the two largest towns have populations of 66k and 43k or there abouts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top