Cheetahs boss flags two teams to be cut from Super Rugby as Australian clubs wait on decision

http://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/rugby-union/cheetahs-boss-flags-two-teams-to-be-cut-from-super-rugby-as-australian-clubs-wait-on-decision/ar-AAok5Sn?li=AA54yd&ocid=spartandhp

How in Hell the Kings survive is beyond reason. Until they get axed the competition remains a joke.

 Denny
do not know which team would be cut in Australia - but I think the bankrupt Kings will not survive.   Insofar as Australia is concerned I think it may be the brumbies who bite the dust - but may be wrong.   Canberra does not really have the audience required and dispeursing of their players to Perth and Melbourne might make some sense. 
I think the SA positions is that they want a 16 team competition with Australia getting cut to 4.   How the system would then work is not clear.  The problem here is that through television rights SA is the main financial source of the competition with New Zealand and Australia depending on funds obtained that way.   So it is likely that SA will have the final say in this case since Supersport will have the final input.
How the Conference system would work is questionable - but I think their may be four pools - with the pools beimg compiled as follows:
Pool  1   New ZealandPool  2   SAPool  3   AustraliaPool  4   One team each from the NZ and SA plus the Sunwolves and Jaguares.
Just my thinking on the issue.
There are 15 matches played per team per year and that would mean that all 16 teams would play each other once.    As you pointed out that would mean extra costs to the franchises through travelling - but may be the answer nevertheless.       
     

 I don't get two Ozzie teams being axed but if they are then it will be the Western Force and the Brumbies. The Rebels have a financial backer so they're safe.
It still begs the question why the Kings won't be axed.

 They definitely will be axed - no chance of survival unless the Government cover the costs.   And they get a much stronger squad together - their present squad is a joke in bad taste.  They really have no public support in SA.  

 This competition should have a maximum of 10 teams.  Players do not get sufficient time to recoup.  This has become a nice fat cash-cow for advertisers and the likes of DSTV / Fox with the games and all those piss-poor spin-off actuality programs where the same rhetoric and cliche's are regurgitated by all these "experts" - some of them even sound punch-drunk never mind stupid!
Kings, Sunwolves are not even CC standard.
Best solution - is to have 3 teams each country with the Argies helping Aus.  Then any single player may only play two consecutive games and the pool of players for every "franchise" can be 50 players.
This means players can rest and coaches can "pick" their fights with the combination players they utilise per game.

 
The competition is so watered down these days that people have lost interest. Why haul out our hard earened cash to view a clash between the likes of the pathetic Kings, Rebels, Sunwolves, Force, Cheetahs and Highlanders.

The comp should have a max of 12 teams competing for top honours.

Bulls, Sharks, Lions, Stormers

Canes, Saders, Highlanders, Chiefs

Brumbies, Waratahs, Reds

Jaguares

Starting a B division would be better suited to those discarded. One could also bring sides in from Tonga, Fiji and Samoa.

Lust for the mighty dollar will however prevent this.

The sport itself has taken a backseat.

"Bulls, Sharks, Lions, Stormers

Canes, Saders, Highlanders, Chiefs

Brumbies, Waratahs, Reds

Jaguares"

I agree about the B division but I do think you're being a tad harsh by relegating the reigning champions!

New Zealand deserve all 5 teams. This competition was at its best when it was a S12 with 5 NZ teams, 4 SA teams and 3 Oz teams. Chuck in the Jaguares and a combined Japan/Fiji/Tonga/Samoa team and make it a S14.

 
Would a combined Japan/Fiji/Tonga/Samoan side not go down the same road as the "Cats"? You and I both know that that didn't work.

I'd rather have a lot more of their players exposed to a B division than a handful from each country squabling over a few spots in a single team.

Perhaps we could have the Jaguares vs the Blues for the 12th spot in the premier division with the loser relegated to the B division.

Each team should earn his right to play in the premier division. We need the best competing against each other. No favours ... no hand outs.

 Agree with CleanCut

"Agree with CleanCut"

So you'd also relegate the Hurricanes? The reigning champs?

Tough school!

 @rooi...
sorry i actually missed that completly.
I certainly think the Kiwi teams deserve to have a full house representing.

I for one would actually much rather see the SunWolves, EP. Force and Rebels moving out of the comp into a B league where they all belong.

But i doubt that is going to happen.

I don't think a B league will generate enough interest to be viable.

Not sure how the other countries want to handle who gets chopped and who stays but whether we end up with 4 or 5 franchises, I think the SA representation in Super Rugby should be based on Currie Cup performance so no franchise is guaranteed a place for the next year.

Would add some interest to the Currie Cup and would hopefully keep our players playing in this country to ensure their teams get into the Super 14/15 or whatever that number is going to be.

 Be-League has lots of potential to keep things more interesting for both the top-of-the-loggers and the bottom half of the log. Relegation/promotion matches might spike some extra interest and viewers....and it's fair.

It is likely to be a Super 16. SA has over 60% of the viewership- so we will hold bargaining power. 
One weakness of having more New Zealand teams means harder tours for other countries. New Zealand are already the best- and this is another advantage that existed in the old Super12.

5 teams from New Zealand 
5 teams from South Africa 
4 Teams from Australia
1. Argentina1. Sunwolves
-------------------------------------
I would prefer a Super13: where every team plays each other once.  3 teams would miss a match each week to not overplay the teams.
New Zealand - 4 teams (not enough forward depth for 5 teams)South Africa - 4 teams (not enough backline depth for 5 teams)Australian- 3 teams (Certainly only forward depth for 3 teams at most)
1. Argentia1. Sunwolves

"New Zealand - 4 teams (not enough forward depth for 5 teams)"
Oh? Which one of the current New Zealand franchises has a weak forward pack?

@Rooineck- New Zealand usually has one pack that takes a beating when they tour SA. For long it was the Hurricanes where they were routinely pounded, and by the end of the match were getting dragged off in exhaustion after getting bullied in the mauls and lineouts. The Sharks cheerleaders may as well as prop up the last scrums.
It may be more accurate to say they don't have the tight 5 for 5 teams

 
Um Redneck ... in certain circles the Hurricanes are referred to as the "Canes".

Why would I relegate them?

They are the very first kiwi team I chalked down.

Now say your sorry!!

 
SoftC0ck ... you missed what?

Open your eyes and read properly ... I take it you can read, right?

Oh and one more thing ... stop editing my posts.

Ed ... please look into his tampering of posts. That's if your not too busy.

Sorry!

 So are the Highlanders pathetic or just when playing the Kings or Sunnies ?Pretty much every NZ team has at least an outside chance of winning the Super comp.Western force and Kings would be the logical teams to cut .A Pasifika team based in Auckland would do OK  pretty big support base .

 
That's ok ... you're forgiven!!!

 Hmm now let me see ,which countries teams have all won at least one Super comp even with supposedly weak forwards ? So which country had at least 4 of the top 5 teams last year  ?Suggest you have another think about it sharkbok.