Can anybody explain why nz shouldnt lose a Super side

The Blues may not be the best of the NZ sides at the moment but they do play an attractive and enterprising brand of rugby and they are always competitive which is more than I can say for any of the SA sides bar the Lions.

Plus there's the small matter of them having won three Super Rugby titles . . . something that Baboon-ou could only dream about.

Anyone suggesting that New Zealand should lose a Super Rugby team is a fool who clearly doesn't watch a lot of rugby.

I agree it should go back to 15 teams but I think SANZAR have it wrong in cutting 2 SA sides. On this season's form alone it's obvious that Australia should lose 2 and South Africa should lose 1.

Cloudy you are correct.
Irrespective of who they cut just ensure that the competition does not go downhill and that the games are more competitive than the present set up. South Africa is not able to field more than 4 teams strong enough to play in this competition.
14 is my guess but I really would love to see a team from the Pacific Islands included so that would make it 15 teams. 
4 x NZ4 x Oz (? maybe 3 x OZ)4 x RSA1 x Japan1 x Argentina1 x Pacific Islands
Perhaps to keep it at 14 teams drop another OZ team. Neither the Rebels or the Force teams are performing well and have not for a few seasons.

all south african super rugby teams - 3 super rugby titles
blues - 3 super rugby titles

is this really not enough to quell brother beenos dumb argument???

the reality is the lions are the only non NZ team who are legitimately better than the blues and if it wasnt for this anti NZ format which sees NZ teams playing other NZ teams way more than the non NZ teams, u would have seen the Blues rise the occasion under umagas tutelage.

@cleancut,

"Yeah I agree. The Blues have been poor for an age and should be dropped."
fact the lions are the worst super rugby team in the history of the competition.
after 20 years of super rugby the lions have
6 x wooden spoons
5 x wooden spoon runner ups
3 x 3rd last placing

in 14 out of the 19 super rugby years the lions have been in the competition, they have finished in the bottom 3.
by ur logic, the lions would be the first team on the chopping block.

"The Blues have been bottom loggers for years now."
"I guess they qualify cause they're Kiwi, huh?"
are u sure about that???
after 21 years of super rugby the blues have
0 x wooden spoons
2 x wooden spoon runner ups
0 x 3re last placings

the reality of the brutal NZ conference is clouding ur logic and facts. the simple fact is the blues are bottom loggers by NZ standards, not super rugby and especially not by ur standards.

they qualify for exemption because of a simple word called merit, i dont know what the translation of merit is in sth afrca, but for the rest of the world it means to deserve or be worthy of.

"Anything that favours the Kiwi is accepted. Fairness to others is never considered.
It's always only about the Kiwi and their needs ... and we've grown used to it."
talk about crying me a river.
despite the efforts of a few of ur countrymen, this is comment is the true reflection of the average saffa mentality. SA always get the raw end of the stick, NZ gets away with everything and theres no evidence to back this mentality up.

"They even made sure that the travelling arrangements in SR favoured their teams and if there were a close competition for the rugby player of the year you can bet your bottom dollar that the Kiwis would see to it that one of their candidates received it."
is there any evidence of this??? u can bet ur bottom dollar there isnt.

"Look how they pouted and sulked for 2 decades when they couldn't win the WC title on their own. It had to be given to them."
pouted and sulked??? thats not my recollection, we were to busy celebrating winning the majority of everything else in rugby.

"A thousand excuses were used ... food poisoning ... cheating ... the ref ... blah, blah, blah ..."
i admit the food poisoning excuses were used by the fans way too much, it should have died back in 95.
but i will always lmfao at any saffa who talks about others blaming the ref, blaming the ref is the Springboks fans national anthem.

"and amongst all the failure they still thought of themselves as better than the rest of us."
All Blacks test record vs the world in between the 87-11 RWCs
vs everyone - played 253, won 203, lost 46, draw 4, 80.2% winning percentage
vs wallabies - played 60, won 40, lost 20, draw 1, 65.6% winning percentage
vs Boks - played 46, won 31, lost 14, draw 1, 67.4% winning percentage
vs france - played 27, won 19, lost 7, draw 1, 70.4% winning percentage
vs eng - played 19, won 15, lost 3, draw 1, 78.9% winning percentage
vs british lions - played 6, won 5, lost 1, 83.3% winning percentage
vs everyone else we faced, 95 played, 95 won, 100% winning percentage

10 from 16 Trinat titles
18 from 25 bledisloe cups
5 from 7 freedom cups

we didnt think we were better than everyone else during that time, we were. it is a simple numerical fact.

the RWCs the All Blacks didnt win in between are very noticeable, only because the RWC is regarded as the be end all of world rugby and why every team bar the All Blacks have fluctuations in their performances in between.
but RWCs cos of its 4 year cycle is still in its infancy stages, maybe not infancy but it is in human years only 8 and the All Blacks have won 3 of them already.
for a little contrast the first 8 TriNats saw the All Blacks with 5 under there belt, and they ended up winning 10 of the 16 RWC titles.
dont be surprised if by the time the RWC turns into a teenager the All Blacks will have a one sided RWC trophy count, just like it does with every other major rugby comp 7s included.

 Because we win every week and you don't 

 
The Super Rugby competition has always favoured those down under.

The Kiwis took advantage of this and subsequently chalked up title after title. How could they not. Everything was in their favour. Even the Ozzies walked away with the title.

We were referred to as whinging babies when we complained. Had the shoe been on the other foot we would have heard all about it ... and then some.

It doesn't take much for these soft arrogant Kiwis pr!cks to break down in tears. Look how they're b!tching now about the Lions ... "It's not fair" ... and with it the usual excuses come pouring in. The competition hasn't even run it's course yet and the tearful complaints are already surfacing. 

What kind of people are you? A bunch of snivelling babies. One would swear you have the right to the title every year. It's ok when you have the advantage over us all. Favourable refs with their decisions on the field ... allowed to play by a different set of rules to the rest of us. Then it's all a strutt and mouthing off. As soon as a little competition comes or if we get a decision from time to time then it's one tearful excuse after another.

We've all heard your teary eyed wailing and "no fair" complaints over the years about what a failure your national side is at World Cups.  

You honestly think that you won the trophy in 2011!!?? LOL!!!!!

The rest of the planet knows it was a handout. The French were robbed out of pity for you and your long history as WC failures.

Shame ... the poor desperate Kiwis. What blows me away is that you took it with both hands ... knowing full well that lt was only out of pity ... and not deserved.

A HANDOUT.

Keep strutting boys ... and girl. I'm sure we are all very impressed with your "accomplishments".

"The Super Rugby competition has always favoured those down under.

The Kiwis took advantage of this and subsequently chalked up title after title. How could they not. Everything was in their favour. Even the Ozzies walked away with the title."

Huh? What were these factors that favoured the N ew Zealand or Australian sides?

I trust this is not going to be just another tearful whine about the naughty cheating refs . . . or this ridiculous notion that the distance from South Africa to New Zealand is somehow magically further than the distance from New Zealand to South Africa!

Come on then Klown, let's hear these factors that make it so unfair and have turned you into a sobbing and blubbering little gurly-boy.

I wonder where Klown has suddenly disappeared to?

Must be getting a nappy change . . .

 I do think you need some new material on Kiwis to bleat and whinge about CC.The repetition is getting a teensy-weensy boring for us and truly embarrassing for your more level headed countrymen.I exclude Hasbeeno of course when mentioning "level headed".....

It's a great pity the hapless turncoat rooitwitterbug is siding with the kiwis again but its no surprise given this halfwits affinity to the wee abs and kiwi teams and his antipathy to SA sides especially the Stormers.Rooitwit you have to understand CC, like some others, can only take so much of your BS in one dose. Hahahhahahahahahaha  As I always say rooitwit - be careful not to make dense denise look good! When you plummet to that level its real bad!
South African has the biggest fan base and most players. Hence kicking out one third of our Super rugby sides is absurd in financial terms. In player term the Cheetahs have been on a par with the Blues over the last few years.We see everything is always being done to favor kiwi teams be it bent refs or rulings on player misdemeanors. Sports writers globally have condemned bent nz refs etc and many an example has been furnished proving how crooked they can be.
No fire the Blues and keep the Cheetahs. It's the right thing to do. Kiwis think they own rugby but of course they don't.
Beeno setting the record straight and taking no BS from ou rooitwitterbug and his kbbs collaborators.  Deport ou rooitwit to nz and lets have done! 

 we don't own rugby. Never have and never will but one thing we own is you and long may it continue. 
Love the howls from the beaten boks as as they come up with any old excuse they can fabricate. 
The more Beeno and CC squeal the more us Kiwis love it.Thankfully there are a few level headed Saffas on the site who must be embarrassed by these frontal lobotomy rejects.

The 2011 WC was a bit of a ref handout. However, in 2007 NZ got well and truly knobbed by the ref against France. In 2011 the Boks got shagged right up the bum Bryce Lawrence. It is just the nature of the game. Sometimes you are on the right side of a bad call, and sometimes you are not. The really great teams make sure they are on the right side of the ref...or alternatively, play well enough to remove him from the equation.   

 Most Saffa are aggrieved at their own teams performances rather than looking for sad arsed excuses like ref whinig and " we have further to travel blah blah "and somehow blaming us for their woes .As for us being arrogant ? How many times have we seen the likes of beandork and co putting down Aussie rugby when the Aussies have the same number of RCs ,Super and Trinats-4N titles as SA ?Hey Naru !True BB the ref overlooked the Froggy eye gouging and assorted garbage but the Frogs couldnt kick their penalties so justice was served!

 Wardad
Please understand that the embarrassment, Jihadi Imam Beeno, does not represent or speak for South Africans, he more than likely represents the lunatic fringe.
I do however apologize for his insane utterances.

 dense denise as the boards chief clown I can't say I am embarrassed about you as its expected for you to live up to your billing. Bwahahahahahhahahaha

 Indeed Denny I understand your dilemma  being splattered with the crap emanating from some twat who by some unfortunate coincidence was born in the same country !Totally unfair and I believe that Beendork and all the other Beandiks should be put into some modern day leper colony shorn of any nationality or status .Somewhere in antarctica wearing nothing but budgie smugglers would be appropriate and hilarious !

"South African has the biggest fan base and most players. Hence kicking out one third of our Super rugby sides is absurd in financial terms."

Baboon-ou, just so I understand, do you think the goal should be to make lots of money or is it to have a competetive and interesting Super Rugby competition?

Please spare me all your usual blather and squealing and just answer the question. Thanks in anticipation.

 Wardad
It's almost impossible to explain a freak of nature....problem arises when they're aloud to speak. Your idea about Antarctica has a l ot of appeal.

 The answer is very clear Beanhead -->Auckland Blues are not a political Team, they are not there to prove a political view point or racist agenda LOLS or to advertise rugby as an exciting sport in States or Provinces or Territories who are strongholds other sports such as AFL, Rugby League, Soccer etc.

Bloo can you explain how the New Zealanders would be in the top 5 spots, if the Lions are in there somewhere.....have you discovered some 'new maths'? This is a fairness issue.... if Oz and SA yield 2 teams to make a better tournament NZ could yield one......regardless of team performance. That is of course if they actually want to play against non NZ teams. This idea that 'we are best' so we have as many teams as we like doesn't fly.

 Rooi
It does come down to finances ultimately. Let's not forget that while the Free State is largely a backwater hole in the ground that most if us avoid at all costs...DSTV would lose many subs if the Cheetahs were struck from the card.
Sure, having the competition cut down to only include best sides makes sense from a neutral rugby fan's point of view. But ultimately, people want to watch their own team.
Presently the Bulls and Stormers have no greater claim to surviving the chop than the Cheetahs do. So there is that issue also. 
I think what most people dislike is that were the Kiwis to be allowed more teams than the rest of us then it would feel more and more like they're being put up on a pedistal.
Then there is also the issue that, and I could be wrong but, the less SA teams we have in the comp, the more time our teams would spend on the road. Does that then create a hold which becomes harder and harder to climb out of? Yes we can't blame NZ and OZ for being where they are but for them its much easier to travel to each other than it is for us to travel to both of them. So nobody is blaming them for geography, but it also unfair to assume that it doesn't play a role and accusing people of brining up of whingeing. 
Patriotism and snivveling aside, it's a tricky issue to navigate and I doubt most here fully understand the repercussions. Not that I do. 
Either way, I'm not interested in getting into some tit for tat argument with anyone. 

Plum, first off, I disagree that DSTV would lose many subscriptions if the Cheetahs were dropped (or more likely, if the Cheetahs were amalgamated with another franchise).
Secondly, the Kiwis deserve more teams than South Africa or Australia. If you dispute this then you're either as biased as Klown or as stupid as Baboon-ou.
Anyway, I'm not arguing the fact that money, sponsorship and TV rights are all important elements of the future and sustainability of Super Rugby, but my question stands . . . is this cutting of three teams designed to make more money or make the competition more interesting and competitive?

 Rooi, I guess it's designed to A) save money by not having to pay the Cheetahs and Kings franchises contract fees and B) to improve the standard of play in the competition.
Do DSTV give a toss about SA rugby...or rugby in general? Well only as much as any company cares about it's bottom line. We all know that Supersport 1 IE the channel that shows the rugby is only available on the most expensive DSTV package. Every other person I talk to says they literally only pay the sub to watch the rugby.
Notice how soccer, including the Champions and English league are available on much cheaper packages. Why is that so? I mean rugby is nowhere near as popular as soccer in SA? How come then, that popularity doesn't govern price in this instance, as it usually does in business?
Well it's because MNET know where their bread is buttered. Their promotion of quotas and failure to ever discuss the detrimental political influence on rugby in SA is for the exact reason that they don't give a fck about the quality...as long as more people sub. As a broadcaster MNET are totally at liberty to discuss quotas and political interference in sport, yet they never do. Is it because they fear the government or is it because they fear kissing off people who support aggressive transformation?
Having dated the head of creative productions at MNET, I can tell you that their overarching goal is to break into new markets...with their main focus being the local black market in SA. 
It's similar to large grocery chains selling you fair trade goods. They could give a toss about fair trade. Neither could their shareholders. What they do care about is making you believe that you can trust them and thus feel more at ease spending your cash with them.
So I don't know man. All I do know is that DSTV/Mnet are the main sponsors of SR and their bottom line is all that matters. He who pays the bills makes the rules. 
So, when you ask if they're acting in the best interests of rugby, all l can say is that I believe they act in the best interest of whatever aligns with their bottom line. Does the best interests of rugby in SA presently coincide with that? The cynical me says no. 

Two tier league with promotion / relegation from 1st to 2nd tier and from 2nd tier to new teams would solve everything.
Get rid of the dead wood. 
Introduce some consequence and things would straighten up real quick

 Spot on Matey...2 tier are the way to go.
Rooi and all others. SANZAR is a partnership. In a working partnership, one partner can't be more equal than the others. SA should have 5 teams. The same money that pays the salaries of SA players are paying NZ and Auzie players too, regardless of exchange rate. If SA players somehow get less, something else is wrong...most probably some cookie jar bandits are spreading the earnings too thin. Reducing the SA sides won't sokve this problem. If the quality of rugby was any issue at all, the relegation should have been based on log position and all 3 relegated teams should have been Auzie....SANZAR is trying to polish the SR turd they created into a gem of some sort, but they're only spreading the sh!t all over.

 To cut to the chase RE: Beandorks question .No .No one in the known universe can explain anything to someone as thick as ten ham sammiges laid end to end .Hey Hakwa how goes it bro ? Ya been doing any fishing ?Denny sad as it is we all have our cross to bear ,unfortunately for all you poor bloody Saffas yours is yuuuge and beandik shaped .

 Mate, I can't spend my time apologizing for Jihadi Imam Beeno's bigotry and lunacy, if I did that I'd have no time to do anything else. Bear with me as I wear the cross of being born in the same country....fortunately that's where all other similarities end.

Draad, noted, so I can safely put you in the group that is more concerned about fairness, legalities and money rather than the group that wants to see an entertaining and competitive rugby tournament.
Got it. Thanks.

Hey ... Chump!!!

There is a lot more to it than entertaining the public as far as I'm concerned.

The Kiwis have had the advantage over us in this competition since the beginning and now they're looking to enhance it further.

The sole reason they decided to bring the Jaguares and Sun Wolves in was to develope the game. There was no other reason for it other than to improve the standard of play within these countries

Retaining the Blues who have been bottom loggers for an age now would help New Zealand to develope their rugby further ... whilst discarding 2 teams from South Africa, who are on par with the useless Blues, would effect us negatively as a whole.

I'm surprised I need to explain this to you.

If they want to reduce the number of teams in the competition then they should do it across the board. Instead they're looking to favour themselves again and in doing so widen the existing chasm even further.

Happy now??

Klown, you said that the Australian and New Zealand sides have had an unfair advantage from the beginning. I'm asking you to list some of those unfair advantages.

Come now, don't become another weak coward like Moffie or Dense. It's a simple and a reasonable request.

 
Really??

If you need an explanation for that too then I honestly don't know.

You go work it out ... chump!!

Typical!

"Boohoo, it's all so unfair . . . sob sniff!"

"There there, don't cry, tell me what is so unfair and I'll try to help."

"Blubber whine sob . . . no, I'm not telling! It's not fair! Waaaa!"

"How can I help if you don't tell me what it is that's making you cry?"

"Boohoo! I'm not telling!!! (stamps foot very hard) It's not fair! Sniff . . . sob . . ."

LMAO!

 Come now, don't become another weak coward like Moffie or Dense.
This from the weak-kneed sookie baby who had a hissy-fit and flounced off the board with an expletive on the way out.

Actually Dense, I'm referring more to the fact that Klown is too cowardly to answer a specific question . . . much like you were on this thread.

If you think I've dodged a specific  question in the same cowardly and craven manner as you, Klown or Moffie have, then go ahead and put it up.

Edit: Oh and before you ask, Dense, note that asking me my name, asking me to put up my pic or wanting to know my job or any other personal details about me does not constitute a reasonable question and I'm not dodging it like you dodged my rugby/message board related question. I know you're a bit dim but at least try to understand the difference.

 
Why would I need your help?

I already have it figured.

Besides ... it would be like asking a clueless moron to assist with something that's beyond him.

Thanks for the offer though.


 

 Clean Cut why don't you just agree with him, that way it saves us all from listening to "I've asked you a question, don't be a coward,  you're dodging my question"..man it's so friggin nauseating listening to what sounds like a squealing fat pig !

Well Dense, if it's making you feel physically ill then I'll ask the glaringly obvious question . . . why don't you just man up and answer the question?

I mean . . . duh-huh!

Don't worry, I know you'll dodge this one too. You can stop cowering in terror. It's okay, I don't expect you to suddenly grow a pair. Keep ducking and diving and pretending you're not a gutless little suck-up.

 Nyaaah Nyaaaah Nyaaaah
Listen Moron, why are you addressing me? Seriously, why?
Do I address you? No I don't.
Tell me then, what does it take for it to penetrate your thick skull that I don't give a flying fandango what you think.....your dumb childish questions....your dumb opinions.
And s top following me around the board FFS.

Dense, I think it's a bit late for you to try and sound like some kind of tough guy.

That ship has long sailed.

Anyone who knows anything about you, your behaviour on this board, your cowardice and your deeply unpleasant personality knows that you're not this hard case you're trying so hard to portray, most people know you as a weak, arse-licking and deceitful coward . . . so spare us the tough guy act . . . even if it is hilarious!

Actually denny's ship always stayed right here in the harbour.....it's your ship that sailed Urinal, after the Board censured you for boorish behaviour.