Run For rest...
...of course Argentina winning the SA conference has nothing to do with it..
...and it's gunna be tough facing those Kings again...are you sure you'll be alright..
Brycy
Why should SA pay to keep NZ rugby alive after all? Saturday proved that there are two reasonable teams in NZ rugby - the Crusaders and the Hurricanes. The rest are poor twaddle like the Highlanders, the Chiefs and the Blues.
And then we have a classic case where a Highlanders player for the first time in his life getting a hard tackle start crying? Crybabies playing rugby with the assistance of crooked and incompetent referees makes the present competition a farce..
There is more money for SA teams playing NH team s than there is for them having to subsidize NZ rugby - so face facts.
Duplication
Duplication
Duplication
This could be the beginning of the end. South Africa is in the same time zone as Europe, so there will be more viewership.
Perhaps the SuperXV should be reduced to the Super10 so that both tournaments can be played.
America would be more likely to join with Europe than anywhere else.
The above is a newspaper pipe dream as as discussed by Sanzaar in the following report from news24:-
Super Rugby chiefs on Monday rubbished claims that three more South African teams could leave the competition to play in Europe as "simply wrong", insisting they remained committed to the southern hemisphere game.
The Wales Online website reported that the Durban-based Sharks would be the first to join the European PRO14 competition for the 2019/20 season, with the Lions and Stormers potentially following suit the next season.
The Cheetahs and Kings, who were cut from a downsized Super Rugby last year along with Australia's Western Force, already play in the PRO14 which includes teams from Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales.
South Africa's franchises are reportedly increasingly disillusioned with competing alongside teams from New Zealand, Australia and Argentina, in time zones spread across the globe.
But governing body SANZAAR said all its member unions were still on board and involved in an ongoing review to determine Super Rugby's future up to 2030.
"As part of this process the member unions have fully committed to the strategy and their future participation," SANZAAR chief Andy Marinos said in a statement.
"Any talk of a change to the stakeholder relationship and partners withdrawing, creation of new teams in new markets and trans-Tasman competitions is unsubstantiated speculation and simply wrong."
He said the review would "address the challenges facing our game and to clearly articulate SANZAAR's vision and purpose in terms of a sustainable future".
"Everything has been on the table - status quo, expansion, contraction, competition formats, etc - as part of our initial blue-sky thinking."
Last week, Australia's Fairfax Media cited a leaked paper titled "SANZAAR 2030 Strategy" as examining a push into North America, potentially as a contingency plan should South African teams jump ship.
It reportedly raised the possibility of a 20-team, four-conference format likely to feature at least one US team.
Attempting to gain a foothold in the lucrative but ultra-competitive US market would be a bold move for SANZAAR, particularly after the 18-team debacle.
The experiment, which ended this year after two seasons, added an extra three teams to the competition, including Argentina's Jaguares and the Sunwolves of Japan.
SANZAAR's strategy paper found the resulting competition was "confusing, lacked integrity and was ultimately not supported by fans, stakeholders and commercial partners", Fairfax reported.
Moving into new markets is seen as key to increasing television revenue and preventing cashed-up European clubs from luring top players.
Marinos said it was disappointing some of the review's initial work had been "taken out of context".
"Potential expansion into new markets for example should not be confused with only an increase in teams," he said.
"We are already in the process of taking the established product to new markets. Matches being played in Si ngapore, Hong Kong, Fiji and Samoa are examples of this."
The news could have been spread in an effort to undermine the dominant position of SA Rugby in running of Sanzaar - the situation being factual because of the financial contribution made by SA through Supersport to the funding of the series, which help with financing the teams of New Zealand and Australia
This resulted in a situation were if SA says to the other countries "Jump" the response will inevitably be - "How high", making them very unpopular in the Sanzaar set-up. ..
Excellent :)
So many pros to this move that the cons hardly require discussion.
No more games decided by jet lag. No more ridiculous match times. Bigger wages for players. Less player drain. New teams to play against. More interest from fans. The list goes on and on.
Hopefully, it will also mean a less convoluted season where our boys meet the EU teams during similar stages of the season and not either at the back end of theirs or the arse end of ours.
100% chuffed about this!!!
Maybe a club type tri-series can be arranged with the best teams from Oz, NZ and SA meeting every second year. That sort of competition will probably generate more revenue than a full SR season at present.
Indeed.
The up side is...Rugby over Xmas
Not likely to happen. I do not think that from a financial perspective and the financial viability of rugby in NZ and Australia World Rugby will allow it to happen.
Mozart
Have you ever thought about things when posting on this site? If you checked th background and then made a thinking comment it would be entirely foreign to yourconduct.
Mozart the major contribution by Superrugby in buying TV rights is circa $1,9 billion - the money in the main flows to the various Unions to fund the various franchises. The games in NZ and Australia is subcontracted to Foxsport through an internal agreement between the two broadcasters.
None of the Unions made such a massive contribution to their own teams through local sports sponsorship and it has been stated repeatedly in the past that money from SA is in fact the main source of funding for Super Rugby and it is keeping Australian Rugby afloat and helping in a major way in funding NZ rugby. The funds also virtually in its entirety funds the Jaguares team
Maybe I was slightly wrong. Super S port belongs to DSTV - partly owned by Johann Rupert and that is where the real power in the set up is. So if Supersport says to SA Rugby "Jump" - they ask "How High", and transmit their wishes to the other unions involved with the same result.. .
Mozart
The package was before the latest contract S1,6 billion and the latest amount is $1,9 billion/ Where do you get the $200 million from? You are talking about the local rugby comps in NZ not the total picture. Fact is the $1,9 billion is for a three year contract - the NZ income from that is funded by SA though Supersport and that only relates to Super Rugby. If the NZ lose that source their rugby will go bankrupt. .
$1.9 billions... Shows an awareness of the money involved in sports...
SA has already moved two clubs to the north, this led to debt, no benefits. Players are being poached.
It distorts the competition, see for example the record of the current european cup finalist that is involved in pro 14. This gives dummy matches that NH teams do not want to play. The SA club qualified in play offs was trashed.
Pro14 does not need more dummy matches as already, the teams focus on european cup encounters.
More SA teams will only destroy that ailing competition, SA clubs will add nothing, will lead to spread the wealth, will force NH clubs in lengthy travels to play matches in empty stadiums.
Then it will spread to premiere and top 14.
Keep the failure contained.
Aag fook Trad, kom net by.
