S18 on its way

[Ruggo]

To be fair to the AFL, the only reason those two teams have provided lob sided results is because their teams have been created using nothing but top draft picks from the last few years. This means you have almost two whole teams of barely out of school teenagers competing with big dogs who have been consistently competive for ages. Also 2 teams in two years is a tough ask on local talent.

The AFL has the money to bankroll teams in deficit until they come good and are prepared to stick with them until they're succesful. They are aiming for expansion and to get kids to swap codes and in the long term it will work. Its not about quality of players, its timing and opportunities. When you think of the programs they will be implementing in these areas such as oz kick and having professional players come to their schools and teaching the kids then you realize what we're up against.

To be honest, I think in Oz we need to work hard on growing the game out of the traditional home states. All this talk of growing the game is great, but it's not really developing growth here in oz. People complain about Aussie depth, but the stocks will get thinner and thinner as the other codes offer our players more opportunities.

Between Northern Territory, South Australia and Tassie we have around 2400 regstered seniors and over 2000 juniors playing rugby.

We're pushing 5000 players who given proper coaching and development, a proper pathway and professional programs could be the beacons to grow the game domestically.

I'm an eternal optimist and I'll never be happy until South Australia has or is a member of a professional rugby team, but can we get our own house in order before we talk of growing the game in other countries?

I grew up playing and following Aussie rules. I was used to the Crows and local SANFL teams coming to our schools, signing autographs and teaching us skills. It wasn't until I travelled that I even knew what rugby was and I've been hooked ever since.

It took till I was an adult to even know what rugby union was. How sad is that???

Being a rugby tragic in one of those minority States/Territories I miss the ARS. I used to love getting out and supporting the Mozzies.

 

[Rassie]

id very much hope that a Argentinian team playing super rugby would attract a higher level of player than a Argentinian team playing in the Vodacom cup would. Besides the kings wernt even in currie cup 1st division were they? yet your still very persistent that they should be part of the 6 teams to represent sth africa

The Kings do not play in the CC first devision nor the CC. The same goes for the Cheetahs, Stormers, Bulls, Lions and Sharks. They are franchises and Eastern Province play in the CC first devision along with Border and SWD who form part of the Kings franchise.

This is the EP team that played the promotion relegation match for the CC against the Cheetahs

Eastern Province Kings: 15 SP Marais, 14 Paul Perez, 13 Wayne Stevens (capt.), 12 Shane Gates, 11 Marcello Sampson, 10 Wesley Dunlop, 9 Falie Oelschig, 8 Cornell du Preez, 7 Wimpie van der Walt, 6 Devin Oosthuizen, 5 David Bullbring, 4 Rynier Bernado, 3 Clint Newland, Hannes Franklin, 1 Jaco Engels.

Replacements: 16 Frank Herne, 17 Andre Schlechter, 18 Wayne van Heerden, 19 Mpho Mbiyozo, 20 Scott Mathie, 21 George Whitehead, 22 Michael Killian.

This the Franchise team

15 SP Marais, 14 Sergeal Petersen, 13 Ronnie Cooke, 12 Andries Strauss, 11 Marcello Sampson, 10 Demetri Catrakilis, 9 Shaun Venter, 8. Luke Watson (c), 7. Wimpie van der Walt, 6. Cornell du Preez, 5. Steven Sykes, 4 David Bulbring, 3 Kevin Buys, 2 Bandise Maku, 1 Schalk Ferreira

Replacements : 16 Edgar Marutlulle, 17 Jaco Engels, 18 Daniel Adongo, 19 Jacques Engelbrecht, 20 Johan Herbst, 21 George Whitehead, 22 Hadleigh Parkes

You must also remember that guys like Vergallo and Leonardi, Parkes had to take turns to sit out as they could not field all 3 of them due to restrictions. Which was a further spanner in the Kings works as it happened almost the start of Super Rugby. If they had more time they could have a stronger squad actually.

But how many people wrote them off and gave them no chance? I was one of those included and for a Franchise in its first season with not so many known players did they really perform that bad? I do not think so as there is room to improve. Currently it won't happen as they lost half of their squad already.

When I said SA take a step backwards I meant SA competing in a conference with a Argentine side. It would be the CC with a Argentine team added. How would that benefit us then? NZ and Aus provide the ultimate challenge.

Further the Kings issue we really want them in as well so this political BS that is going on can come to a end and we can concentrate on rugby again in this country,

 

[Langthorne]

Wimpie van der Walt - love that name! I'm sorry, but it wouldn't Super rugby without the South Africans featuring throughout the season against our teams - the commentators, the cheer girls, the in your face style, the names!

 

[PaarlBok]

An expansion into Argentina and elsewhere will be tabled when Sanzar officials meet to discuss their latest Super Rugby incarnation

27 August 2013

Expansion into new countries and new methods of broadcasting will be on the table when Sanzar officials negotiate its model beyond 2016.
New Zealand Rugby Union chief executive Steve Tew confirmed the prospect of expanding Super Rugby into countries such as Argentina and Japan will be discussed at a series of meetings next month.
South Africa's desire to field six teams after the 15-team structure winds up in 2015 has prompted officials to consider a different format.
One possibility is for teams to play matches only within their own conference through the regular season, followed by a wider, inter-conference finals series.
Teams from Argentina or Japan could be added into larger New Zealand and Australian conferences.
Tew doesn't want to discuss details but says the NZRU have certain "non-negotiables", including a desire that the tournament be no longer than the current model, which stretches beyond six months, and preferably shorter.
He says Argentina's involvement will hinge to some degree on that country having more control over its leading players, most of whom are contracted by northern hemisphere clubs.
"We're committed to them being involved in Super Rugby at some point in time. One of the options is for some expansion at this next juncture for them," he said.
"If we are going to expand then there's probably room for expansion in more territories than just Argentina."
Tew says a suggestion that Australia and New Zealand form a competition that doesn't involve South African teams is unrealistic commercially because of the sizeable broadcast revenue out of South Africa.
Super Rugby games in South Africa are also acknowledged by NZRU high performance staff as a proving ground for future Test players, he says.
Tew hopes agreement can be reached by the end of this year and be taken to the broadcast market in 2014.
"We think we've had a good competition over the last 17 years. We're keen to preserve it in a form that will be future-proof," Tew said.
"All three countries have pay television platforms that rely on a lot of content. This competition provides a lot of content."
Tew indicated that New Zealand's broadcast rights may not be sold en masse to pay network Sky as has been the case since the sport turned professional in 1996.
He is encouraged that other platforms, such as digital live streaming, have entered the New Zealand market and he won't rule out rugby spreading its reach.
"Sky will remain an important partner until the end of this deal and it will be a brave person who predicts they won't be an important part of the next one," Tew said.
"But we're encouraged by what modern technology is giving us, including the opportunity to view things on more than one screen."

 

[Bon]

Any Super Rugby expansion that impacts on the ITM cup wouldn't go down well with the NZ public,and I suspect the same would apply for South Africa and their Currie cup.

 

[PaarlBok]

Any Super Rugby expansion that impacts on the ITM cup wouldn't go down well with the NZ public,and I suspect the same would apply for South Africa and their Currie cup.

Look like it will be integrate with Superugby.

One possibility is for teams to play matches only within their own conference through the regular season, followed by a wider, inter-conference finals series.

Should have been done when they started with the conferences. At the moment the CC Premier league involve 6 teams. Make sense to shorten the season. We have proncial contracting , easy to change. NZ have central contracting and some work needs to be done. They should change their franchise to provinces. Cant be that difficult. This will give Australia their own CC league and all will be sorted.

 

[PaarlBok]

SS Tony Johnson

Mapping out the future of Super Rugby



by Tony Johnson 02/09/2013, 09:48

As the 2013 Rugby Championship enters a defining phase, Sanzar will this week start the process of defining the shape of Super Rugby post 2015.

They say they want a deal done by Christmas to present to the broadcasters.

There will be change, and it could be quite significant, because of a desire to bring in new blood and South Africa’s insistence upon a sixth team, which alone means the end of the current system.

There are some non-negotiables:

1) The aforementioned sixth South African franchise
2) A demand from the players for a 12-14 week break between seasons
3) The determination of New Zealand and South Africa not to allow the season to extend beyond its current 21 weeks

Then there is a wish list, items not in the non-negotiable column, but strongly desired by one or more parties:

1) Moving the June test window to July
(2) Expansion into new territories.

And some differing attitudes that will have to be considered:

1) South Africa generates by far the greatest revenue and feels entitled to a stronger influence
2) South Africa likes the international component
3) New Zealand likes the international flavour but gets most excited about “derby matches”
4) Australia gets most excited about the derby and Trans-Tasman matches
5) New Zealand and Australia play the bulk of their matches at night, in part to satisfy global audience demand
6) South African matches are played mostly in day time where they are visible in Europe, but attract comparatively small viewership in the other Sanzar nations, which may be a factor in No 3 and No 4.

The task, as always, will be to shape these demands, desires and attitudes into a workable format to the satisfaction of the member nations and the increasingly influential Players Associations, that can then be sold to the broadcasters who pay the money that allows this competition to take place.

Sort all that out by Christmas?

I would have thought there’s as much chance of that as there is of Justin Bieber becoming the next world cage fighting champion.

Already possible outcomes have been touted, mainly in the Australian press, where there has been much talk of a split competition, with New Zealand, Australia and possibly Japan on one side, and South Africa and Argentina on the other, with the top teams (4-6 perhaps) from each coming together at the end for a playoff series, similar to the Heineken Cup.

Given the amount of exposure it’s been given do we assume the split format is what Australia wants? It might also be supported by some of the senior pros in all three countries who tire of the long-distance travel and time away from home.

But it is wrong to assume New Zealand’s backing for this proposal. The New Zealand Rugby Union is mindful of the money South Africa generates through its massive rugby audience, and would be reluctant to close that door. There is also a respect thing, and a strongly held belief that part of the reason for New Zealand's continued success is the regular exposure to the tough challenges of playing in South Africa and against the powerful South African teams.

They are not necessarily going to give all that up just to save a bit of travel expense and protect some tiring bodies.

And I’m not sure if Saru would favour it either. As already pointed out it is the international component of Super Rugby that most appeals to South Africa. The Currie Cup looks after the “derby” aspect.

But while South Africa’s powerful position has to be respected, there is I suspect some minor frustration over the unbending stance on a sixth team, because it renders the current system unworkable. There is no way you can have five teams in two conferences and six in another. That would force a situation where each South African team would play conference games against three teams home and away and two teams just once which would make for some untenable imbalances.

However if there was a split competition, it wouldn’t matter how many teams were in each division, as long as they can get their matches played in the allocated time before the cross-over “post season” starts.

Expansion is another tricky point.

It is logical to try and bring Argentina in, but far from simple, given that nearly all of their players are based in Europe in the vice-like grip of the French club system. If they were to have a presence in Super Rugby it would need to be competitive, and not some kind of development team.

New Zealand and Australia have been eying the lucrative Japanese market for some time, and I note that given the number of Springboks plying their trade there recently there is a bit more interest from South Africa, which I’m told was previously not inclined to consider Japan.

Japan is a rugby minnow, but it is a powerful economy which could bring some real financial resources into Super Rugby. There are already enough good players there to field a couple of competitive teams comprising a mix of foreign and local talent, and it would be a positive step ahead of them hosting the World Cup.

However, Japanese rugby is largely controlled by industrial giants who own the club teams, and there is a lot of prestige and honour in that. Asking those giants to allow a new Super Rugby team with a massive profile to come in and possibly steal their thunder is likely to be a real challenge of diplomacy.

In the end, as always, it will be a case of the three different countries going in and haggling over what they individually want and what they don’t want.

Compromise has always been the way at the negotiating table, with one country prepared to make a concession to another to help get what they want. In the end they will have to agree, because the countries need each other.

I know some of you feel that South Africa would do fine just on its own. Financially it probably would, but South Africa’s surge back to the top of the rugby tree after isolation was greatly helped by regular exposure to the rugby of New Zealand and Australia, and it would surely be a retrograde step to back out of Sanzar.

And before someone screams “we’ll go to Europe”, forget it. It is unworkable, unless you want to play your rugby in the summer and turn all your provinces into clubs. I just can’t see Leinster or Bath wanting to play the Sharks in Durban in January.

I confess to not having any firm solution in mind. I like the idea of fresh blood, but this competition cannot take up any more calendar time than it already does. I love the international flavour and, like most, I believe the June window has to be moved…..but until everyone north of the equator agrees to that I’m not sure how Sanzar can manage it.

The answers don’t seem all that obvious, which is why I’ll believe in Santa Claus before I believe they’ll get it sorted before Christmas!

 

[Dan54]

Perhaps anwer is go back to S12, SA 6 teams , add one more in NZ (6 teams all up) and have one of a hell of a kick the shit of each other tournament ( I would love it), all play each other once with finals, exactly same amount of travel for both conferences. Australia may form a seperate comp with islands or Japan, and everyone happy?? Don't know why I didn;t think of it before!!

 

[PaarlBok]

Sport24

SARU gets Super Rugby wish

2013-09-03 15:02


Cape Town - South Africa will in future be able to field six teams in the Super Rugby competition, it was confirmed on Tuesday.

It's no secret that the SA Rugby Union (SARU) wants to see the Super Rugby competition be expanded to 16 teams to accommodate all six SA franchises, including the Kings - who played in this year's event at the expense of the Lions.

But the Kings won't form part of next year's event after they lost a promotion-relegation series to the Lions last month. This prompted SARU to keep pushing SANZAR for an extension of the event, with their wish now seemingly set to come true.

This expansion from the current 15-team competition is likely to come into effect from 2016, when the new Super Rugby broadcasting deals come into effect.

According to SuperSport Blitz, SANZAR boss Greg Peters gave SARU CEO Jurie Roux this assurance on Tuesday.

 

[Lee Grant]

More here on the matter:

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_8904877,00.html
.

 

[Parse]

Wonder how long it will be before the Saffas start saying they require 7 teams in the Super Rugby competition..... bets anyone?

 

[Lee Grant]

I would be surprised if they want more.

Six for them ticks all their boxes. Any more would blur the significance of the Currie Cup.

Likewise five for us is ideal; it's enough teams for players to move around the country if they can't get a gig elsewhere.

Now we can get a good look at Wallaby alternatives that we wouldn't otherwise get, or would get only later. Sometimes we would lose guys overseas too early if we had only four teams.

Mind you - as I said when rumours first started about there being a fifth Aussie Super team: I would take four teams and a national domestic competition every day of the week.
.

 

[p.Tah]

... a national domestic competition every day of the week.
.

Rugby 7 days a week. Sounds like utopia

 

[PaarlBok]

Wonder how long it will be before the Saffas start saying they require 7 teams in the Super Rugby competition... bets anyone?

Our CC Premier League is 6 teams, 8 in Division 1. So we are moving closer to get where the CC is part of the SupeRugby season to shorten our season.

You can expect Saru to drive the Conferense system even more to reach their goal. This system is the only positive for NZ and Australia. Its what draw the spectators and TV numbers.

Like Oom Lee qouted, you had vokol provincial rugby, look where you are at the moment.

NZ also moved to streamlining their NPC and will probably look at their ITM to try and do the same as SA.

There is no way SA will chuck away the oldest provincial rugby competition for a S100.

 

[ChargerWA]

A bit of a damned if you do damned if you dont situation. SA bring too much to the table to be ignored. But I can't see anyway it can be implemented without compromising the current strengths of the competition.

 

[PiXeL_Ninja]

Despite wish, SA to ditch S15?


Cape Town - The assurance of having six teams in Super Rugby from 2016 may not be enough to stop South Africa from turning its back on the Southern Hemisphere competition.

SANZAR CEO Greg Peters on Tuesday gave SA Rugby Union (SARU) boss Jurie Roux his assurance that South Africa will have six Super Rugby teams from 2016.

"We are very keen on making sure that we retain Super Rugby as the Southern Hemisphere's pre-eminent international provincial rugby competition," said Peters.

"By doing that it has to be one competition. We have yet to determine the structure beneath that and the number of conferences involved but what I can assure you of though is that there will be six teams from South Africa."

SARU wanted the Super Rugby competition expanded to 16 teams to accommodate all six SA franchises, including the Kings - who played in this year's event at the expense of the Lions.

However, despite SARU's wish being granted, a report on the front page of Wednesday's Die Burger newspaper states that South Africa may yet decide to turn its back on Super Rugby.

The opportunity of forming a competition with French and English teams is reportedly better from a financial point of view due to the favourable time zones for broadcasters in South Africa and Europe.

The current broadcast rights deal for both hemispheres expires at the end of 2015, and South Africa's revenue could increase if they join a European competition, the report stated.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

You can just tell that the circus that is the SANZAR negotiation period is just around the corner.

 

[PaarlBok]

The opportunity of forming a competition with French and English teams is reportedly better from a financial point of view due to the favourable time zones for broadcasters in South Africa and Europe.

The current broadcast rights deal for both hemispheres expires at the end of 2015, and South Africa's revenue could increase if they join a European competition, the report stated.

Wont be surprise to see money winning this.

 

[p.Tah]

If South Africa is thinking of joining a northern hemisphere competition are they willing to switch the professional season to Summer (Sept-May)? Is it feasible to play rugby in South Africa in December-February? Will the Northern hemisphere teams really want to travel to Africa when they are use to a few hours travel at the most?

 

[Blue]

Wonder how long it will be before the Saffas start saying they require 7 teams in the Super Rugby competition... bets anyone?

That proves you have no fucking clue as to the reasoning and history for them wanting six (6) teams. No more no less.

SANZAR is a three way partnerships. There were tow other votes that could have blocked this. It was not. What does this tell us? SANZAR agree.