FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  The South African viewers been taken for ride by NZ and Australia

The South African viewers been taken for ride by NZ and Australia

Started by kingcorn17 REPLIES708 VIEWS· 12 May 2014, 19:19
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
KI
kingcorn
Pro3,695 posts
KI
kingcornPro3,695 posts
12 May 2014, 19:19
#1
12 May 2014, 19:19#1

So, Aus and NZ have had their way once more and that is to come up with a format that suits them. The South African viewers will be funding their rugby for the next 5 years while South African rugby goes backwards.


I can’t believe that SARU have not thought it through and placed the interest of both the viewers and rugby players at stake.


It is no secret that 50% of the revenue is generated from the South African audience but we are allowing for them to kill off our own domestic rugby. Why do we want to watch games between SA sides sprinkled with a few foreign teams when we have the currie cup?


This whole thing stinks if you ask me.


The money that SA generate should be reinvested back into the players and creating a competitive league for all to enjoy.


If Aus and NZ were so keen on conference stages then they should have Argentina and Asia play in one of their conferences. It makes more sense as there is exactly 12 hours difference and it would make it 6 teams each. This means a game played at 7pm in Argentina can be viewed at 7 am in Sydney. Or if it’s in Japan then it’s pretty much the same time zone.


It would also bring all the teams to 6 teams each in a conference. The whole point of super rugby is to watch the best players play and not some journeymen showing up for random franchises.


We would have had the best from each country, but at the same time allowing new unions to develop and have a chance to stake a claim.


My format would have been to have the conference qualifiers where by the top 3 teams qualify for Super Rugby giving us 9 teams that will be played in a league format. The other 9 would go into a repo-charge league. So you have two leagues of 9 X 9. The top 6 from Super Rugby qualifies for QF with the top 4 getting home QF. Only 2 from the Repo-charge league gets to qualify for the QF.


I think that with this format everybody wins both the fans, players and unions.

If they Aussies are so obsessed with Derbies, then they can always ad extra five games to the start of their season. It’s not like they have a domestic league and risk player burn out. 

3K
3ku1
Pro2,580 posts
3K
3ku1Pro2,580 posts
13 May 2014, 05:13
#2
13 May 2014, 05:13#2
Oh boo hoo do you want a tissue? Excuse after excuse, format favors Nz and Oz sides and viewers. Oh it must be so terrible being a SA player or fan, the whole world being againgst you. Or should i should start singing the national anthem of SA "It was the refs fault! It was the refs fault! The ref got in the way, I passed to the ref and he booted the ball to the skyyyyyyyys" Big high note their haha. Or maybe the problem is SA adminiatration from head to bottom is a disgrace. And until you sort this out nothing well change.
NU
nukefreekiwi
Club Pro441 posts
NU
nukefreekiwiClub Pro441 posts
13 May 2014, 10:07
#3
13 May 2014, 10:07#3
 Errm, Australia and NZ weren't keen on the new conference system at all. The proposed system was foisted upon them by a myopic SARU who are hell bent on ruining Super rugby for us all. The only reason SANZAR have had to remodel the entire conference is because one whinging partner wanted to include one more bottom dweller to a conference already stacked with easy beats. Remember, SARU have created this mess. 
As for SA making 50% of Super revenue. Pffft, big deal. The money isn't distributed evenly. I read that SA were getting 39%, NZ 33% and Oz get the remainder. So SA s major contribution to NZ and Oz rugby is a paltry 11% split 2 ways. Really?  I don't know why NZRU bother. 
KI
kingcorn
Pro3,695 posts
KI
kingcornPro3,695 posts
13 May 2014, 12:28
#4
13 May 2014, 12:28#4
 Hmm, leave it to the Kiwis to go on the insult and attack. Did you even read my entire post? Yep, where would Aus and NZ be without the Saffas. Who in Europe is going to watch a game at 3am. People are barely watching any of the games on the weekend. If it wasn't for South Africa. Aus and NZ would never get a premier air time that SA can offer. 
I don't think I need to defend myself, but I think my proposal made sense. South Africans wants to Play the best of Aus and NZ. 
It is well publisised that Aus and NZ want their own league which they got at the expense of the SA fan. It is hardly a contest when its 2 against 1. 
I'm normally support that SA, NZ and Aus should stick together but if it has fans the look the two of you I would just say stuff this and lets head to Europe. How will you fund your rugby then. No European money to buy any rugby rights, means less cash and more of your players leaving to find some riches. Not sure Japan will offer you any money
WA
Wardad
Pro6,663 posts
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
13 May 2014, 13:02
#5
13 May 2014, 13:02#5
 NZ fought against enlarging the S15 ,this is all SARUs doing ,and conferences do not favour NZ but do help out the saffas and Aussies .Us Kiwis certainly dont want to see our teams belting the piss out of each other while the Aussies play touch footy and the saffa teams dont get the regular beatings from NZ that we all enjoy so much .What with just ONE NZ team [ Crusaders ] having TWICE as many wins as SA and Australia COMBINED I dont see why we would want to change anything ,conferences just guarantee that at least one SA and OZ team get to play a final .Show me where NZ asked for this rubbish .
KI
kingcorn
Pro3,695 posts
KI
kingcornPro3,695 posts
13 May 2014, 13:22
#6
13 May 2014, 13:22#6
 Who were on the top during the super 14 before all of this super 15 conference rubbish. Short memmory, bulls one it three years in a row with two SA teams in the finals twice not to mention SA teams had to play between 4 and 5 games abroad. 
NZ was also the first to create franchises where SA stuck with their curry cup teams. 
Kiwis love bending the rules. 
WA
Wardad
Pro6,663 posts
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
13 May 2014, 14:08
#7
13 May 2014, 14:08#7
WA
Wardad
Pro6,663 posts
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
13 May 2014, 14:10
#8
13 May 2014, 14:10#8
 Bulls are the ONLY saffa team to win ,even the Saders have 7 wins so where is your dominance ? Even the Aussies have as many wins as you guys .And tell me how many years in a row did NZ teams win ?pfffttt... You still cant show me where or why NZ would want conferences that only favour the SA and Oz teams .In the first decade of the super comp only the Brumbies won a comp .
NU
nukefreekiwi
Club Pro441 posts
NU
nukefreekiwiClub Pro441 posts
13 May 2014, 14:12
#9
13 May 2014, 14:12#9
 LOL, you talk as though "Europe" are sitting by the telephone, biting their collective nails, anxiously waiting for the "call" from SARU saying they are finally ready to grace the NH competition with their holiness.  Pffft, they don't want you and they certainly don't want to have to navigate their way through the minefield the new "quota" proposals will present. If they were keen to deal, SARU would have cut their losses and run at the first opportunity. Oh and good luck trying to sell your cutesey provincial CC comp to the SAFFA punters as an alternative to regular matches against NZ and OZ opposition. 

Errm, the Bulls NEVER won 3 Super 14 trophies in a row. 

WA
Wardad
Pro6,663 posts
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
13 May 2014, 14:18
#10
13 May 2014, 14:18#10
 Apparently NUke the Saffa teams are so fragile that the addition of the Rebels has queered their chances of winning ,not sure how that works but it is apparently so !And spot on about the "3 in a row" rubbish ,dude cant even get the most basic of facts right ,and didnt the Saders win 2 S14s ? I think NZ having TWICE as many as OZ and SA combined would mean we are quite happy with the status quo ,its has been reported for quite some time now that the SARU wanted the conference system and this bullshit expansion instead of cutting out some dead wood [ looking at the kings/lions and rebels/farce here ]
NU
nukefreekiwi
Club Pro441 posts
NU
nukefreekiwiClub Pro441 posts
13 May 2014, 14:27
#11
13 May 2014, 14:27#11
 Yeah, the conference system guarantees the Ozzies and the Saffas at least 1 team each in the finals series. Thats a lot better than they were managing on merit alone. 
KI
kingcorn
Pro3,695 posts
KI
kingcornPro3,695 posts
13 May 2014, 17:06
#12
13 May 2014, 17:06#12
Listen, look at these stats if you want to split hairs
  SA NZ Aus Winner Teams 2007 2 0 0 SA 14 2008 0 1 1 NZ 14 2009 1 1 0 SA 14 2010 2 0 0 SA 14 2011 0 1 1 Aus 15 2012 1 1 0 NZ 15 2013 0 1 1 NZ 15 Finalist 6 5 3 Titles 3 3 1
SA has had more teams in the finals since 2007. The current format doesnt help any teams other than Aus and NZ. When it was 14 teams, it actually meant that Aus and NZ had to spend one more week on the road which coincided with them dropping points. 
I agree on you that 6 teams is way to much and I  don't like either. How do we make sure we get the best. I still think a qualifying round should be played. Which use to happen through local competitions but then NZ decided to change the game and create franchises. Now that more franchises want to take part, how do you add them. 
SA has the room for 6 teams as we saw that 32 000 people on average went to go watch the kings games. More than any aus or kiwi team can produce for all of their teams. 
What we do want is quality and that's why I think that each franchise should have the time to build their squad and compete but don't put in rubbish teams to make up the numbers 
WA
Wardad
Pro6,663 posts
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
13 May 2014, 17:10
#13
13 May 2014, 17:10#13
I still dont understand why you think us Kiwis want MORE teams in the mix ,S14s was fine with us and whats the beef with Franchises ? now that seems like splitting hairs to me .Chiefs are still the Chiefs in my world .Aussies would be stronger with 3 teams from states that actually play rugger .
KI
kingcorn
Pro3,695 posts
KI
kingcornPro3,695 posts
13 May 2014, 17:24
#14
13 May 2014, 17:24#14
 My point was that Kiwis and Aussies want to play in their own league at the cost of the SA viewers. Hence the new format where by both Aus and NZ have their own conference which the play one another. It means that An NZ team would play of all their kiwi counterparts and all of the Aussie teams. Where for SA, they have to play each other sprinkled with a few dodgy teams and only Play all of Kiwis one year and all of the Aussies the next year. 
Then go into a knock-out stage that makes absolutely no sense. 
So yes, SA  viewers have to pay for most of your league but not be able to enjoy watching their teams play against yours.
So how does that make sense? 
Conferences should go, bring back the league with fewer teams
WA
Wardad
Pro6,663 posts
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
13 May 2014, 18:01
#15
13 May 2014, 18:01#15
 Nope we actually wanted it kept as is ,its SARU that foisted this whole turdpile on rugby fans to make more MONEY .Why would we want this rubbish ? We love seeing our boys beating SA teams [ only the beating part not so keen on any losing bits ] .The OZ NZ conference malarky is a response to this crap which I reiterate is SARUs doing ,as you said they have the larger share of revenue so they are the ones calling the shots .If you have a beef take it up with your mob we NEVER wanted any part of this ,why would we ? our teams are do ing just fine thanks .
sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,295 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,295 posts
13 May 2014, 18:22
#16
13 May 2014, 18:22#16
The new format is rubbish. If their had to be more teams, it should have been a round one of local derbies for all 3 countries. 
Then the crappest 2 teams from each county gets knocked out- and is not allowed to tour internationally. 
This year New Zealand has 5 strong teams, but often this is not the case. The Australian conference is also the best it has ever been, but usually the Force and Rebels are crap. South Africa's teams in 2014 are all crap especially now that the Sharks have lost form.Bulls may be on the up and maybe Sharks will get back into form, but having this 6th team is going to push the allready limited backline resource that is available in SA.
In practice Australia and New Zealand are getting a better deal for the spectators- but maybe because they are close geographically. 
South Africa are getting a better deal in terms of an easier passage to the final because the tours are shorter, and their is going to be more easy beats like the Kings to milk points from. 
However from a spectators viewpoint we are going to get a big curry cup with a few international teams. Teams that get to play in group B get to play all the Australian sides, an 2 teams that do not yet even exist. This is a much easier route the playoffs or home finals than having to tour 4 games away on the road- especially if a South African team draws the hardest teams like the Stormers did this year. SARU have turned it into a quota competition. The Kings will certainly get put in GROUP B, with Puke Watson captain an Daddy the spokesperson
NU
nukefreekiwi
Club Pro441 posts
NU
nukefreekiwiClub Pro441 posts
13 May 2014, 18:46
#17
13 May 2014, 18:46#17
 Why would you omit the years from 1996 to 2005 ?  Would that be because in 10 years SA were only represented in a Super final TWICE? LOL!
KI
kingcorn
Pro3,695 posts
KI
kingcornPro3,695 posts
13 May 2014, 19:40
#18
13 May 2014, 19:40#18
 I admitted it because before then, SA were still using their provinces, not franchises and had to tour for weeks where as NZ and Aus only had to do 2. From 2007 the SA teams overca me the travel and learned how to beat the Kiwi teams at home. 
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news