FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Aussies push to shrink Super rugby

Aussies push to shrink Super rugby

Started by Brycy6 REPLIES167 VIEWS· 04 Apr 2014, 20:41
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
BR
BrycyPro4,671 posts
04 Apr 2014, 20:41
#1
04 Apr 2014, 20:41#1

Is that a fracture in the ironclad Sanzar rugby alliance? Or just the Aussies flexing muscles they don't have?

 

Either way, it's clear the southern hemisphere collective still has some way to go to present a united competitions format to the market as they get set to negotiate their new broadcasting deal for 2016 and beyond.

 

Yesterday reports emerged across the Tasman that Australian Rugby Players Association boss Greg Harris had made a significant push for Super Rugby to be reduced to a 10-team trans-Tasman competition, with South Africa marginalised to only a peripheral playoff role.

 

Harris met with his players association colleagues Rob Nichol (New Zealand) and Piet Heymans (South Africa) in Hong Kong last weekend, and apparently presented a compelling case that the mooted expansion of Super Rugby to 18 teams for 2016 would have a seriously detrimental effect on Australian rugby.

 

Harris's concerns come out of a report the Australian players' association has commissioned and which has been presented to key stakeholders there.

 

Already Sanzar has confirmed its preference for a sixth South African entry and an Argentine side to be added to the competition, and it's common knowledge that an 18th team, either in Asia, Europe or America, is also part of the latest preferred model doing the rounds.

 

But as Australian rugby comes to terms with its dire financial situation and a growing domestic broadcast market that it is only scratching the surface of, it seems that there is a strong desire for contraction, rather than expansion, across the ditch.

 

Harris told The Australian newspaper that growing the number of matches in the South African time zone would have dire consequences for Australian rugby.

'What I said to my counterparts was that based on the research Rupa has collated, the 18-team competition will not produce sufficient rugby for Australian rugby,' Harris told the newspaper.

 

'The most viable model, the one in the best interests of Australian rugby, is a 10-team competition between Australia and New Zealand. The only crossover involving South Africa would come at the playoffs stage.'

Though Harris conceded the Rupa proposal ran contrary to preferred scenarios elsewhere in the collective, he was adamant it was the best way forward for Australian rugby.

 

He said if New Zealand and South Africa had their way and got a five-year deal expanding Super Rugby to 18 teams, Australian rugby would be 'broke' before the term came to an end.

'Anyone signing off on such a deal will not be acting in Australia's best interests,' he said.

 

At present the AFL (A$250 million) and NRL (A$200m) have annual TV deals that dwarf the A$25m the Australian Rugby Union receives for its broadcasting product.

 

There are high hopes that the new Sanzar deal will go some way to addressing that massive difference, though declining TV and live audiences in the Australian game indicate that the product is coming up short in the ultra competitive marketplace across the Tasman.

 

Sanzar remains tight-lipped about its proposed new competition format, but a June deadline to present to broadcasters is drawing closer, with clearly still some work to do to get all three partners on the same page.

 

- © Fairfax NZ News

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
04 Apr 2014, 21:09
#2
04 Apr 2014, 21:09#2
 Essentially the S15 needs to be the dominant competition, with no domestic play for qualified players....or it has to be more like soccer, a knockout tournament for the top domestic clubs. As it stands it's a bit of a monster gobbling up the health of too many young players.
OI
oimateyPro1,870 posts
04 Apr 2014, 21:29
#3
04 Apr 2014, 21:29#3
Expansion seems inevitable - too much potential revenue and special interests at stake.

Two 12 or 14 team conferences - a West (European/S African/Argentine) and an Ea st (Tasman / Japan / Singapore / Fiji). Schedules can be indepedent and time-zone specific until playoffs

Six teams from each conference make playoffs with top two in each conference getting first round byes.

Bottom two teams in each conference should be subjected to a play-in challenge every year from clubs wanting to join. Keeps things competitive and fresh - just look at what it did for the Kings and the rejuvenated Lions.

Time to pounce is now while the English and French are discontent.


BR
BrycyPro4,671 posts
04 Apr 2014, 22:31
#4
04 Apr 2014, 22:31#4

...don't like the idea of Argentina being introduced...the one Argentinian ref we had was promptly sacked and all their best Argie players play for European teams...so all we're gunna get from that is a kak team or two along with a kak ref or two...

 

...expansion is not gunna create anymore revenue either is it ?- more like people will be turning their tvs off from there being too much rugby...less is more so it's gunna be difficult for SA to get OZ /NZ to come to the party..

 

...from what i heard the stadium tickets are half the price in SA of what they are in NZ/Oz so if you wanna make more money maybe up the price of the ticket...?? 

MD
Monkey D LuffyPro6,277 posts
05 Apr 2014, 03:30
#5
05 Apr 2014, 03:30#5
no matter what route they they take, not everyone will be satisfied.

i agree regarding a spXV team in argentina, waste of time IMO, they will need a lot of puma players to make uo the numbers just in order to get the backing of the public, add to that they will need a level of success a minimum finals appearnce and what have u just so that support dosent wane.

im a little worried for the aussies though and what greg harris said, i would like to know more about his case and what leads him to believe that the ARU would be broke.

i think that expansion is unavoidable, but for me the best thing about spXV is the interstate rumbles, when NZ teams play the SA and OZ teams.
so with that in mind maybe a two tier conference system is the best way to go about it?
we can have one the premiere super rugby tournament and the other just a step below, with a bottom three and top three relegation scenario.
that way,,,
- we still get the international flavour without having the top teams avoid each other as in the current format.
-the players wont get over worked
- and everyone has something to play for
FO
ForeverArizonaClub Pro580 posts
05 Apr 2014, 23:27
#6
05 Apr 2014, 23:27#6
 Let me just get one thing straight...I don't give a fuck about Australian rugby nevertheless about Nzl rugby.South Africa's rugby needs to get stronger and if it comes at the cost of a bankrupt ozzie rugby who gives a shit!?!?!?!?Australia wont stop this and neither will Nzl.Stop whinging fir fuck sake.Step up or step aside end off.Ozzie rugby is in anyway shit.The most boring rugby on the planet.
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
06 Apr 2014, 02:17
#7
06 Apr 2014, 02:17#7
 Do you have any cells firing in that empty head of yours ? No NZ ,no OZ no fecking rugby worth watching ,and hows the bok record against the aussies the last 4 years or so ?Idiot says what ?
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news