Sanzaar might not cut teams at all

SANZAAR’s plans to cut teams from the 2018 version of Vodacom Super Rugby could fall flat on its face, meaning the Southern Kings and Toyota Cheetahs may be given a reprieve.

That is, however, if the Australian Super Rugby sides win a court case that the Melbourne Rebels have launched in Australia against the governing body to save them from being axed from the competition.

While SA Rugby still has to announce which two sides will be cut from the 2018 version of the competition, general consensus seems to be that it is the Kings and Cheetahs that will face the chop, prompting emotion and anger in those regions.

But the financial realities in SA Rugby mean that the national body may have no option but to cut teams and has publicly said so.

The problem comes now with the Rebels, who are privately owned, this week launched a court case against the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) to stop the governing body from “buying back their license from them.”

With the Western Force also threatening legal action and the Cheetahs locally reported to have sought legal advice from a senior advocate, the 2018 cut is far from a done deal.

Sanzaar’s governing body will meet in Tokyo on Thursday in a “heads of state meeting” where the progress in the Super Rugby cuts are meant to be discussed, but Supersport.com’s information is that unless the cuts are approved in both Australia and South Africa, Sanzaar will be forced to continue with the 18-team competition until 2021.

South Africa has already approved the cuts in SA Rugby meetings and a franchise committee is now meeting to decide by means of a weighting system which two sides will fall away, but the war in Australian rugby is far greater, with both the Rebels and Force resisting any change in the current system.

The ARU specifically named both sides as the two in danger, while absolving the Brumbies from a cut when it held a press conference last month but both sides have rallied to save their franchises, with the Force obtaining major backing from the Western Australian government in recent times.

Both teams feel they have “an outright case to stay in the competition”, according to The Australian newspaper, with the Force reportedly asking for an injunction as well.

With the two Australian states getting involved – and the Victoria government now reportedly offering the same level of financial support for the Rebels as the Western Australian government, the ARU sits with a problem in trying to sort the matter out.

But if they do lose the court case, or are unable to come to solve the impasse, all bets are off and Sanzaar will keep the same tournament structure for the foreseeable future, even though in their own words it has proved wildly unpopular.

 NZ must cut a side If we must cut two! This competit ion is about more than those most unreasonable kbbs!

 I do no think the NZ teams should be cut.   Fact is the NZ Rugby financially depends virtually entirely on the Super Rugby teams and the issue should be result driven.
SA d not have the real ability and player resources to field more than 4 teams and I agree with SARU that the number of franchises should be reduced to make the SA teams more competitive.   
In essence the same applies to Aussie Rugby.   I fail to understand that of the Aussies really want to expand rugby as a sport how New South Wales can have two franchises leaving for instance Western Australia and Victoria out of the game completely.   Even if the Brumbies ends up in the play-offs Canberra is not a major rugby center and they would be badly beaten by any team they come up against.
I think the Canberra (Brumbies) players should be distributed to make up deficiencies in the Waratahs, Rebels and Force teams.      

 Mike, if SA and OZ have teams cut then so should NZ. If not then it will mean that more NZ players are exposed to the highest level of club rugby, thus widening the gap. Also opening the door for them to dominate the competition even more than they already are. Each country should have 4 teams, with Bargie and Japan. 

 this is not about countries, it's about Super Rugby itself,....

last year the SR expansion to 18 teams was a complete failure (as many of us predicted),.... such was the failure that the TV audiences dropped abruptly and the TVs gave SANZAAR a serious warning,... they had to fix the disaster or the TV deals would be renegociated,.... downward, obviously

apart from the Rugby Championship Tv deals, this is the SANZAAR main source of income (for every union, SA, Aus and NZ),.... the warning was so serious that SANZAAR decided the same year to change the format (for the next season) and hire a external consultant to find the reasons of the disaster and the possible solutions

the main reason of the disaster was the lack of competitiveness of some teams (last year mainly Suwolves and Kings but not only),... this lack of competitiveness made that nobody wants to see them playing,.....
they thought that the expansion provoked this lack of competitiveness, which is true,.... but what we are seeing this season is that the problem is much bigger,.... what we are seeing this season is that the professional structures of the sport in SA and Aussie have completely collapsed and are utterly useless (see the lack of fitness of the SA teams) while those of NZ are btwin the bests (if not the bests),.... the SA teams were agonizing for a while but the breaking down of the aussie teams has happened in a 2 years period and specially this year,.... in 2014 the tahs were champions,.....

this is a huge problem for SANZAAR and Super Rugby,... currently only the Lions can be competitive against the 5 NZ teams (and we will see if they can keep it once the coach is gone),.... and it's not only a problem of not having enough good players, the whole structures are failing,...... nor SA nor Aussie are now producing enough apt coaches and the level of their coaching is IMO the lowest in many years or probably ever,....

the only way to try to fix this and regain some competitiveness is reducing the number of SA and aussie teams,.... considering the level of rugby in each country I would say that they should be reduced to 3 each if they pretend to be competitive against the NZ teams,... but this should be quite drastic,.... better to begin reducing to 4 first

 In a way you are correct in your assessment, but TV in NZ and Australia produces only a fraction of what SANZAAR tearns through TV rights and it is Supersport who effectively provides circa 70% of the revenue.   That money is what keeps NZ and Australia rugby financially viable.   Without that subsidy from SA NZ rugby will be bankrupt and the system will cause major problems for NZ rugby - which is in dire straights financially anyway.
Pressure is also applied on SA Rugby by Supersport - that is why they agreed with SANZAAR that the number of SA Teams should be reduced to four teams.   Any insistence on reduction to two teams will never be considered as Supersport will pull out and that will sent NZ Rugby spinning downwards financially.  
Where I do agree with you is on the coaching issue and that is in dire straights.  The situation is really desperate and most SA Supporters would agree with you about the situation.   We need coaches badly and I believe the best coaches to recruit would be from NZ.   
I agree with you that  four teams will be better with strengthening of the player squads of the remaining teams.     

 If rugby was the only measure, the bottom 3 teams should be dropped. Basque, dropping 3 SA sides? Really?

 The question that needs to be answered is whether it will benefit the quality of SAFFA rugby if 2 teams are dropped.

 
Well Basque ... it seems you're in favour of getting rid of most of the non Kiwi teams.

Perhaps it would be best if you guys play amongst yourselves ... call it the Super 5 ... and leave us commoners to squabble for some meaningless trophy.

Sound good?