http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24056248
Really interesting to see that France and England want to form their own league that is more beneficial to them. At the moment they feel the current deal is unfair and that the smaller unions should have the same voting power as they supply less teams.
They are looking to start a competition between England and France and have hinted that there is a slot open for other nations to join.
Could that other nation be South Africa perhaps?
Maybe reduce the amount of teams in the SuperX, and put half the SA teams with France and England, and the other half can be in the SuperX
The idea of having SA join is a nonsense logistically.
The system as it stands is totally biased towards the Celtic nations and it's obvious that the Anglo/French Unions want a bigger slice of the pie. If they drop out, the revenue will leave with them.
When the English Clubs withdrew for a Season before, it was a bit of a disaster, so they will not want the two biggest Unions to leave now.
That's actually complete nonsense, Mike !! Look how many times Leicester/Wasps have won the HC ! Even my team, Northampton, have won and they don't win anything !!! I suggest you actually look at the facts before you make comments like that, really :)
No, the fact of the matter is, the Celtic nations do not have to qualify, they get automatic entry, the French and English do not. They also get a vastly higher renumeration per team than the Anglo/French teams.....look it all up.
So the Celtic teams rest their players until it is absolutely necessary to play them in the important matches, we have to play ours from the start as we have to Qualify and thus need to have our best players out there to get the highest table positions.
A fact shown this weekend by no Lions players starting in the Celtic matches, only Hibbard and Adam Jones coming on as Subs. In the Premiership, all Lions players who were fit to play, turned out for the start of the Season for their Clubs.
There is a major disparity and isn't just about money for a change.
I would like SA to stay out of it completely, I agree with you there !
I have always loved the super 12, not the rubbish that it has turned into now. If Aus and NZ want to keep pushing for more teams and longer format, I would simply say that its not worth it.
The problem SA have is that the Heineken cup in its current format is played over the entire season, along side local comps. For it to work for SA it would mean that they have to move their local leage to match the north and then play some random cup matches.
On the reason why England want to split, there is a massive land grab going on at the moment. BT has decided to compete for sports rights with Sky. They actually made a billion pound deal to get the european rights with the England Union but it got blocked because it wasn't done in the right way. At the same time BT has secured all the premiership rugby broadcast rights in England. That leaves Sky only with the heineken cup.
Price wise, rugby lovers would go for BT as for £16 you get your broadband and sport where as with sky have you to pay the baside package + £26 sport subscribtion.
Don't be supprise if Saru starts looking north, way more money up north
You just have to ask yourself what reason do you have to stay in the sanzar? the southern hemisphere game has been regressing alot because they want to strip the laws down to make a one dimensional try fest. the set pieces are not great, defences are not great either. its just a shhame that the irb is buckling to new zealand and moulding the laws to the game they want everyone to play. super rugby ois really generic now with pretty much everyone playing the same sort of way with the odd exception. its not the rugby i knew and loved as a kid and like i said if australia could logistically work a way out i would be in favour of it! the nh would force us to toughen up our game. the players have been saying it all southern hemisphere rugby is boring bullshit.
if SA want to go i say let em go, japanese markets are awating and while NZ prefer the easy money which SA can provide, therye not too worried at all cos of the lucrative sponorsgip deals they have with addidas alone. but u add the AIG money and theres some serious cash involved. the perks of being the most successful rugby brand in the world.
mikeys comments here -
"The idea of the English is that since they have not really succeeded in the competition - that the format should be changed or they threaten withdrawal"
are not too far from the mark, its true as becs pointed out that england have won 6 the same as france and ireland, but england havent won anything since 6 yeats and its been a long time between drinks.
IMO the same can also be applied to SARU and them looking at outside options. SARUs teams whose participation in super rugby and TriNats has been clearly underneath the boot of the NZ rugby empire have been very unsuccessful.
add to that that the Boks and SA super rugby franchises have more wooden spoons then their SANZAR bros, plus SA monoplizing super rugbys bottom 3 positions 50% of the time, and im surprised SARU have stayed in as long as they have.
watse of time talking though, cos its never going to happen.
england and france are looking at starting the new tournamnet (if there is one) next year, SARU wont be able to join until 2016.
then theres the logistic nightmare, SARU will be bowing down to the french and english so SARU will have to change their rugby timetable across the board.
how many english and frnech teams are going to want to play rugby in SA during summer???
what are the chance that SARU will convince the english and french unions to change thier timetable to accomodate???
if they could come up with a logical way of making that tournament work, i think it would be a good thing if it did happen. sure i would miss the SA vs NZ games in particular which is my favourite part of super rugby, but NZ need to explore the japanese markets and this would be just the push they need. NZRU are in a financial position to be able cope with the loss of money that SARUs depature would bring so the timing of everything couldnt be better.
i also agree with mikeys comments about SA rugby deteriorating should they progress up north, constant exposure to NZ has made them stronger and its true that the same can be said for NZ regarding SA, but its SA who benefited the most with that exchange.
look at the wallabies, they were pretty much nothing until SA were banned from rugby, and with no Bok/All Black tests this brought back the bledisloe cup a comeptition which has been played anually since.
wallabies winning percentage before isolation - 33.3% (186 tests - 62 wins - 118 losses - 6 draws)
wallabies winning percentage after isolation - 63.1% (325 tests - 205 wins - 112 losses - 8 draws)
NZ rugby on the other hand has always and will always be storng, :o)
sasuke i would have agreed with you years ago but things have cxhanged. the sh comp is not the bench mark anymore. the only thing propping up new zealand is the crooked reffing which has gifted them countless victoreies. this isnt the great all blacks of old or when super rugby was the super 10. its not like that at all. sh rugby is totally piss poor and sloppy. youd be nuts to think south africa must stay because of them. its that kind of thinking that has made you lot their little bitch. without sa the sh game will disintegrate especially hte way australia are now.
@kingcorn,
" I have always loved the super 12, not the rubbish that it has turned into now. If Aus and NZ want to keep pushing for more teams and longer format, I would simply say that its not worth it."
its not NZ or SA who want a 6th team, its SARU and nobody in SANZAR wants a longer format.
@ihi,
"its just a shhame that the irb is buckling to new zealand and moulding the laws to the game they want everyone to play. super rugby ois really generic now with pretty much everyone playing the same sort of way with the odd exception."
i love those dumb conspiracy theories, NZ rugby has been so dominanat, that instead of acknowledging just how dominant they have been, they instead point to the IRB the governing body of international rugby bowing down to a NZs every whim, even though NZ is a country of 4 million who generates about as much money for the IRB as the otara street markets.
the thing is ur not alone and that is the true testament to just how powerful the NZ rugby empire has been with all their success overshadowing every other nations bar none, :oP
what a crock of shite. how do you think new zealand "won" that world cup? thew all blacks are a disgrace to the game! the cry for rule changes and despite every other test nation in the world not wanting it the irb gives in. new zealand got a going over in the scrums against italy and got penalised... the ref wsa FORCED to make a public apology. face it pal, new zealand is arrogant as shit and they need to be put in their place. what the fuck is this sport anyway? new zealand and chums? you even are forced to do what they want with the haka. why must one team be the centre of everything? what makes you lot so fucking special? always the puffed up pricks expecting special treatement. stuff the all blacks.
@ihi,
"sasuke i would have agreed with you years ago but things have cxhanged. the sh comp is not the bench mark anymore."
that cant be proven one way or the other, IMO it is, but in urs it isnt, so each to their own.
one thing that cant be denied is the record between SH vs NH which is in SH favour with a winning percentage of 61%.
in the amateur era it was 58% in SH favour
in the professional era it is currently 64.3%
6 of the 7 RWC belong to the SH.
so its not really a stretch for me to say that super rugby is the most elite comp and it is a stretch fo u to say otherwise.
the hieineken cup champions vs spXV next year will be interesting to watch though.
"the only thing propping up new zealand is the crooked reffing which has gifted them countless victoreies."
ah the good ol baby waah waah it was the refs fault, like the american express, accepted in all countries across the world.
"youd be nuts to think south africa must stay because of them."
where did i say they should stay because of them??? i said they should go so read it again.
the byproduct of what is most likely to happen should they leave is IMO inevitable.
"its that kind of thinking that has made you lot their little bitch."
18 super rugby tournamnets in the professional era
12 to NZ
3 to SA
16 TriNats
10 to NZ
3 to SA
1 RC/4nats
1 to NZ
0 to SA
what u talkin bout willis??? o_O
"without sa the sh game will disintegrate especially hte way australia are now. "
theres been no evidence of that ever. NZ were strong in the amatuer era, NZ are strong in the professional era, the only team in the world to be like that.
amateur era winning percentages
Boks - 63.9%
All Blacks - 71.2%
professional era
Boks - 63.1%
All Blacks - 83.2%
each to their own, but IMO NZ rugby are going to be just fine with or without SA, it has been that way in the past, it is that way in the pressent and it will be that way in the future, LMAO, :oP
GO THE MIGHTY NZ RUGBY EMPIRE!!!
the amateur era is a different ball game to pro era. without sa where do you think your players will go? england, fance and south asfrica basically control all revenue in the game. combined new zealand is squeezed out of the picture. they also wont have strpng opponents anymore. union in australia is already on a knife edge. those away stats up north only look better with nz stats. nz of course getting the special treatment that made them fake world cup winners. face it everyone in the game is starting to talk about it, new zealand cant do shit without the irb coddling them!
@ihi,
i love the zero facts and ton of opinions, really makes ur post all the more credible.
so heres my opinon on ur factless take on NZ rugby,,,,
hang tight while i find the worlds smallest violin, :oP
Lets be honest if SARU does not take this chance to join the english and french then we cant expect huge amount of players leaving our shores.
this is a massive commercial chance for SARU and our local clubs to not only boost the bank accounts but will also open up all the overseas based players (SA players) for selection for bok colours. with this huge imflux of capital we can grow the game locally and we can retain our locally produced players for far longer than anyone else.
the myth that the NH game is some how sub standard is complete rubbish. the open boon for SARU would be if we can still be part or the 4 nations. that will not only give us the much needed financial boost we need but we can then in effect have 2 bites of the cherry competition wise as we would then compete against the best in EU and still play against the like of the AB and wallies on a yearly basis...
Huge commercial chance and i hope SARU graps it with both hands
Post deleted, question was answered @ another post, Ciao
Sas, don't get to litteral, SA want one more team which I disagree with, we can probably only put 4 quality teams forward, where as Australia probably only have enough players for 3 quality teams.
But what I implied was that they keep talking about brining in Japan and America. Not sure how that would look. I also feel like NZ has bending the rules for a long time. SARU was a bit to slow and got caugh out, but the minute SA overcome the travelling obstecle, they whent and changed the format to benefit them again.
If you go back to the early Super 10 / 12 days. SA played the top 4 teams that qualified for the compitition, but NZ soon created legions and not provinces, doing away with their provincial teams, SA still used the old mindset but was very late to form these and had a lot of catching up to do. Australia never had a real provincial compititions but had the odd state face off between Queensland and New South Wales.
Don't get me wrong about New Zealand, they really did everybody a favour by making sure they got the best players in a team and it meant that our national sides benifited. If you go back, Eastern Provinces AKA the kings qualified the one year, only because WP had a whole bunch players on Springbok duty and didn't make the top 4.
For me as a Fan, I want the Super 12 back, at a push super 14, 4 from Sanzar each and maybe 2 from Argetina.
As a fan, I would love it if SA actually came up north, would be great to catch euro to paris to watch the Stormers against Stad or going to Toulon. I really loved the fact when the Crusaders played against the sharks at Twickenam or even better. Stormers / WP against Leicester tigers. My wife and her family are massive tigers fans.
But as mentioned above, don't see how it will fit in with the English Playing schedule.
Go back to the super 12 and have second tier where the bottom 3 teams automatically gets relligated.
@kingcorn,
"Sas, don't get to litteral, SA want one more team which I disagree with, we can probably only put 4 quality teams forward, where as Australia probably only have enough players for 3 quality teams. But what I implied was that they keep talking about brining in Japan and America."
hard not to get literal when u say NZ and OZ want another team and not SA, lolz.
but for the record i get ur drift now and just want to point out a few things.
NZ and OZ dont want another team period, but if SA who have been pushing the 6th team agenda so rigorously get there way, it is the opinion of both NZ and OZ that other teams will also need to be included from japan or pacific islands in order for there to be a 2 conference system, one where NZ, OZ and whoever participate in and another where SA and the south americans compete with the top teams from each conference to meet come the finals time.
but both NZRU and ARU would prefer that the teams stay the way they are.
i agree with u about australia, they dont have enough depth to cover 4 teams let alone 5, but IMO 3 wouldnt be enough to cover the actual teams they do have, so a bit of a tricky situation right there.
i say they should have 4 teams and SA should have 6, and i dont think SA should have one on merit, but give a dog a bone IMO and they do contribute a shitload more $$$$ then both NZRU and ARU to the SANZAR coffers, they also have rugby playing numbers to boot.
but as i mentioned, on merit SA dosent deserve a 6th team, the majority of the wooden spoons and monopolising the bottom three ladder positions 50% of the time is not a good look.
"I also feel like NZ has bending the rules for a long time. SARU was a bit to slow and got caugh out, but the minute SA overcome the travelling obstecle, they whent and changed the format to benefit them again."
i consider myself a regular in the sarugby.com waters, so im very use to all sort of conspiracy theories, but for the record could u please clarify the following -
what rules have NZ been bending???
and also
what format did NZ change to benefit them???
"If you go back to the early Super 10 / 12 days. SA played the top 4 teams that qualified for the compitition, but NZ soon created legions and not provinces, doing away with their provincial teams, SA still used the old mindset but was very late to form these and had a lot of catching up to do."
the beginning of super12 (1996) saw NZRU abolish the provinces for the franchises we see today in the crusaders, hurricanes, highlanders, blues and chiefs.
each franchise represents not just its immediate and home base area, but its neighboring provinces too.
SA did the same thing, except they did it in 1998 which IMO is not that late.
from 96-97 the blues won super rugby, from 98-2000 two years after SA copied NZ super rugby franchise model, the crusaders won the super rugby comp.
so i dont think SA can blame the two year head start that NZ had and SA lack of sucess
"For me as a Fan, I want the Super 12 back, at a push super 14, 4 from Sanzar each and maybe 2 from Argetina."
i like super 14, for me that was the perfect number, 5 from NZ, 5 from SA and 4 from OZ with everyone playing each other once.
i dont agree with argentina having any team at all TBH, i dont think they have the proper infrastructures to really make it a long term viable option and theres no way they will have the money to recruit some of their players from up north.
"As a fan, I would love it if SA actually came up north, would be great to catch euro to paris to watch the Stormers against Stad or going to Toulon. I really loved the fact when the Crusaders played against the sharks at Twickenam or even better. Stormers / WP against Leicester tigers. My wife and her family are massive tigers fans."
i can completely dig that too, i had some cousins on an OE in the UK and they went to the crusaders/sharks game in twicks and they absoloutely loved it, but they are from chch and hardcore crussadertards as i always call them, lolz, :oP
"Go back to the super 12 and have second tier where the bottom 3 teams automatically gets relligated."
i say let SA have a 6th team and then split up the temas into to two tiers with the top teams in one and the rest in the other with an automatic promotion/relegation for the bottom 2 teams in the top tier and the top 2 in the lower tier.
or we could adpot the heineken cup model which im a big fan of, and every team can play each other twice in thier pool.
On NZ creating franchises, two years might not seem like such a big gap, but in SA that is massive, NZ teams had time to settle and their teams benifitted. Rugby is a team sports and the teams that normally do well are the ones that have quality players, but also play together for a long time. The Crusaders have such a great model of building a team, the bulls did same with great succcess. So my point is that NZ got their nozes in front which benifitted them for 8 years, not to mention the travel schedule, only 2 games away as to 4 or even 5 on the road.
Then you also got to look at how SA whent about forming their franchises. They put the Lions and Cheetahs together, which is actually a massive rivalry, but also a massive distance to travel. The stormers had the same problem, they had Boland which in Theory is only an hour drives up the road, but then you had the eagles that was 5 hours away. So a home game was never really a home game. Things only start working when they finalised their base, and agree to only play at Newlands. I think the Blues tried to play a few games at north harbour but the stormers beat them comprehensively and that was last of seeing the blues play there again, it could have just been a bad year.
My point is NZ know how to stay ahead and as South African I always feel there is some strange things going on in the back ground.
For example, NZ only weekness in the last 10 years have been there line outs, Hore couldn't hit the side of the barn and there jumpers was really slow. Paddy O'Brien gets ellected as the chief reff and all of a sudden we see the line out laws change drastically. Now all of a sudden you can take a quick line out and throw the ball backwards where in the past you had to throw it in straight. It works for NZ who likes to play a quick game and maybe australia, but not the rest of the world. SA love structure and set piece play, so does England and to certain degree France. Wales are much better than before but back then both them and ireland played a very structure game, they had to as they only had one or two players that were world class.
My biggest bug bear with the current format is the conference, why do I want to watch the bulls and Stormers play each other 5 times a year, thats including the currie cup. I like what NZ did by actually preserving their provinces after the super rugby compitition.
If you want to adopt a heineken format then you have to preserve your local league and create a cup compition, none of these franchises but provinces, Wellington, Otoga, Taranaki, North Harbour against Wester Province, Northern Traansvaal, Freestate, Natal.
I do think SA have a lot of depth, Griquas is the only team in SA that actually managed to be competitive but there are other unions that probably be just as good. We have 14 provinces.
I'm also very dissapointed at the fan numbers at super rugby games. It is shocking to look at empty stadiums.
Shorter format means more people at the game.
The Clubs had no right to make a deal with BT Sport regarding the HC. So they, rightly, stay with Sky.
It's a little more complex about how much BT Sport costs with regards what system you watch it on etc. To me, it is free, to others, it costs the price you quoted, to some on Virgin, it is also free, to others on some BT tariffs it can cost a heck of a lot more. So many have failed to take up the contract. I personally have both Sky and BT Sport.
The English Clubs have a long Season and have smaller squads than the French and a cap on player wages that the French and the Irish don't have. Thus, over the past few years, they have fallen at the final hurdle and those teams have won the HC.
The French Clubs have 2 full team Squads.
The Irish teams can actually get to the last few matches of a Season and only then play their best players....eg a few Season's ago, O'Driscoll only played in 4 matches for Leinster in the HC.
Because we have to qualify and we have a Premiership Final to play at the end of the Season, so we have to finish in the top 6, we have to play our top players at all times and that can be difficult when we have injuries/Internationals and such a packed Season on the smaller budget.
As for SA joining, it's ridiculous.
The logistics for the teams are a nonsense and for the fans a non-starter.
And any countries would have to join the existing format. That has already been stated. So that would mean playing at a time when you guys do not.
I think biggest difference is in the seasons - If saffas want to play rugby during their cricket season then NH comp is no brainer... otherwise stay in SH.
re Japan rugby - Suss you are obviously a tryhard wannabe japanese aussie whos actually a kiwi... bottom line is Japanese not that into rugby atm - maybe market will grow but its not a game that they care for so much.
