SA to push for bigger Super Rugby
24 Jan 2013
MARK KEOHANE writes South Africa will this year support an expanded Super Rugby competition to accommodate the Kings and Lions. But Pacific Island teams will again miss out.
Any expansion can only happen in 2016 but take it as a given Super Rugby will comprise more teams, but they won’t feature teams from the Pacific Islands because there is no financial gain to be made.
Sanzar CEO Greg Peters told the media Sanzar’s three partners Australia, New Zealand and South Africa would make the decision to expand or not later in 2013.
Argentina, Canada, Japan and the United States are seen as the primary targets. Japan because of the cash cow it promises to be, Argentina as a commitment to the expanded Rugby Championship that featured the Pumas for the first time and Canada and the United States because they are seen as potential cash cows, especially the United States. The word is to have one team from each of those countries.
It is one of the reasons Canada and the United States will play in the Pacific Nations Cup, which again shows how poorly the Island representation of Tonga, Fiji and Samoa are treated within Sanzar.
South Africa has always been seen as the big brother to Samoa in terms of value attributed to playing against Samoa and giving the country’s rugby side as much playing opportunity as possible.
New Zealand and Australia do nothing to promote the virtues of any of the Island teams because financially they offer nothing in terms of broadcasting deals.
‘We are considering whether or not we will include new territories in Super Rugby and one of the factors we’ll be weighing up is their [Canada and United States] competitiveness,’ Peters told The Australian.
‘Super Rugby in its present form is a pretty successful model … and we are not going to water it down. But we’d be derelict in our duty if we didn’t consider expanding into areas. The United States is a very big market and so is Japan and Asia generally. Ultimately it all comes down to what is in the best interests of the three Sanzar parties.’
Peters said player welfare would be a consideration but an expanded competition may allow for the tournament to be split into two pools of 10 teams each, although Australia will definitely not want to lose the conference system and the double-header local derbies. It is proving massive in Australia and the current format gives Australia everything it has wanted in a rugby union tournament that competes with the AFL (Aussie rules) and rugby league’s NRL.
Television audience figures and match attendance were highest in Australian Super Rugby for derby matches and because Australia has no provincial domestic competition Super Rugby doubles as their domestic competition. Just how South Africa and New Zealand agreed to give up so much for Australia to have so much gain is a question that can never be answered by those who did the surrender. If it could they would not have done so.
Ideally South Africa should be playing in a Super Rugby tournament with the best from England and France. Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific Islands and Japan should have their own Super Rugby tournament. Geographically that makes more sense, but the Celtic nations (Scotland, Ireland and Wales) remain the stumbling block to any South African participation in Europe.
New Zealand knows it can’t do justice to more than five teams, Australia is at its maximum and South Africa’s only need is to ease the political tensions and have all six regions represented. Then it is a matter of which new territories can make the existing Sanzar partners the biggest financial net gain.
Sanzar’s counter argument to the Pacific Islands is that it is the responsibility of the IRB to develop those countries. I don’t buy it, but then Sanzar has never been big on a purchase of morality.
540 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » Show All
24 Jan 2013, 08:27 am
If this is meaning expanding Super Rugby I am not for it. It is diluting it biig time. Rather stick t having another competition for these other countries. Sorry but that’s how I feel. No slight intended to the Islanders and others.
24 Jan 2013, 08:28 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-44:
actually no, that’s not true.
at most two NZ teams ever look likely winners.
24 Jan 2013, 08:28 am
@Jeez-43: me too. RC stays as is and franchise rugby up north.
24 Jan 2013, 08:29 am
@The Sharks rugby pedigree is packaged as dog food-50:
Hear hear
Give that girl a Bells
24 Jan 2013, 08:34 am
Great atmosphere at the Mabhida last night for the Bafana game.
The really can act though, jeez.
That oke at the end who looked like a sniper had taken him to within an inch of his life should have been taken out back so someone else could have finished him off.
Actually disgraceful behaviour from a SA sports team. Man up boys. You won, act like men and not farking prima donnas.
24 Jan 2013, 08:39 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-52: bakkies, I like it when you challege yourself.
24 Jan 2013, 08:41 am
@Te Rangatira-29:
you seem a little sensitive on the subject buddy.
maybe you just feel bad about sidelining your moan cousins.
24 Jan 2013, 08:47 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-52: Maybe…..but as I said before, their remaining 3 teams NEVER look like wooden spooners either?
Bottom line, whether we enjoy hearing this or not. We (SA) provide and ‘have’ provided Super rugby with the kakkestteams in the tournie throughout……
And it won’t be changing this year.
The Rebels and Force were supposed to take the ‘wooden spoon’ away from us…. and we all know how that worked out.
@nortierd-54: Make it 2
Amper naweek.
24 Jan 2013, 08:54 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-52:
Every NZ team bar the highlanders has played in a Super final, the only stat you need to concern yourself with Houston is NZ 11 SA 3 titles.
24 Jan 2013, 08:58 am
yip… repeat what has been said before when this subject comes up…
would rather scale it down to a 9 (max 12) team comp with less games but higher quality rugby due to fresher fitter (less injured) players…
if they want to start another comp for other teams, cool… but as an entirely separate comp not as a two-tier comp… because ‘super’ denotes rugby of a higher calibre…. not a higher number of teams playing mediocre games…
and yes… for the predictable ones… even if it means the stormers not making it…
because then the doo-dah will really get real… only three teams per country will mean a considerable rise in standards by teams in all three countries to ensure they qualify every year…
24 Jan 2013, 09:00 am
@RL-18:
Here we go.
PLease provide facts with all the players we have poached or be quiet.
@keo-20:
Do you know how much money we send to Samoa for education etc?
How many players in the Samoa team learn there game in NZ?
NOw lets look at what SA do for Samoa…….. nothing.
24 Jan 2013, 09:03 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-52:
I suggest you worry about your owe country with the lack of winning a super rugby title.
24 Jan 2013, 09:05 am
@ufo-60: “…because ‘super’ denotes rugby of a higher calibre…”
I know what you’re trying to say BUT…they tarnish that image by allowing a 2nd Division team to use political interference to force their way into the competition…
24 Jan 2013, 09:08 am
@keo-20:
And quoting from a player that turned his back on his country in the first place is rather odd.
Have you got your own views or is this the land of quotes?
24 Jan 2013, 09:09 am
@The Sharks rugby pedigree is packaged as dog food-50:
i hear you Pedigree but at same time the NZ’s do have a majority of their teams performing in mid table most of the time, with one maybe two breaking to the the top of the log.
the stats dont lie, or as my man Ricky says; ‘if you ain’t first, you’re last’…
24 Jan 2013, 09:11 am
Oh and Keo.
Samoa have been funded by millionaire Sir Michael Fay, one of New Zealand’s wealthiest men, since 1996….. cant see anything about SA still but i will keep looking.
24 Jan 2013, 09:12 am
@John Galt-55:
agreed, absolutely!
very pleased with the win but it should be done like men, not boys.
@RL-56:
oh RL, super rugby deserves a guy like you.. *whispers* come to the bulls …
24 Jan 2013, 09:16 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-65:
Rubbish there were numerous occasions when NZ made up 3 of the 4 finalists under the old format, I see funding appears to be a problem for the rampant drug abuse ( cheating) at SA schools, I really hope this doesn’t mean dopers are going to slip through the cracks.
24 Jan 2013, 09:16 am
yep
sA is indeed samoas big brother
when SA commentators refer to coconut tackles it does imply the old jackboot on the throat type of sibling rivalry
24 Jan 2013, 09:17 am
@The Sharks rugby pedigree is packaged as dog food-58:
look, i’m not arguing with you.
the point i wanted to make is that more teams across the board is not necessarily a good thing. if the best the majority of Kiwi teams can do is stay one rank above the wooden spoonists its not exactly the bees farken knees either.
slice it and dice it, mid-table is still mid-table.
or as my man Ricky Bobby would say…
24 Jan 2013, 09:17 am
@the curse-69:
I reckon the Moans might take the Bokke this year, if they played in Apia they’d have them.
24 Jan 2013, 09:17 am
@BrumbiesBoy-63:
and teams that have lost every game of a campaign don’t…?
24 Jan 2013, 09:19 am
Bakkies
3 NZ super teams have won the title, or 60%
2 Aussie teams have.
1 Saffa team.
SA pushed for the conference system because you struggled to get a team in the finals, with the conferences you at Lear are guaranteed one
SARU further weakening your conference by including the kings is further proof they know SA can’t compete against the big boys of rugby
24 Jan 2013, 09:19 am
@NZINCHINA-59:
only TWO out of the FIVE NZ teams have been resposible for 10 of those titles between them.
as for the rest… if you ain’t first, you’re last, sonny… if you ain’t first, you’re last…
24 Jan 2013, 09:20 am
@ufo-60:
yip
or split it into a premiere and 1st division with relegation between the two?
24 Jan 2013, 09:20 am
@Hurricane-61: look I do not have all day to research and go back decades into this poaching problem, but here is a small sample … Kaino, Rokocoko, Isaia Toeava, Mils Muliaina, Sosene Anesi, Sione Lauaki, Ben Franks, John Schwalger and Rodney So’oialo.
24 Jan 2013, 09:21 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-65:
Your stats are way off.
Hurricanes had better percentage of wins upto 2010 over the stormers.
They have had better win ratio over the lions and cheetahs.
24 Jan 2013, 09:22 am
@Hurricane-62:
i pay the bills for both, so maybe you need to stfu, Donny..?..
24 Jan 2013, 09:22 am
@RL-76:
lol
you are kidding me….. OK we will leave it at that.
You do not know what you are talking about.
24 Jan 2013, 09:23 am
@ufo-40:
Hi Ufo…we’re not going down that road but I thought Rupert and his croonies paid for Super Rugby…comprende
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-47:
Are you disputing my stat that the Bulls v Nz teams had an 80% loss record?
@gunther-57:
Gunther…not sensitive…just tierd of the ignorance…
24 Jan 2013, 09:23 am
@NZINCHINA-68:
24 Jan 2013, 09:23 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-74:
11 to 3, which part of that don’t you get?
24 Jan 2013, 09:24 am
“Ideally South Africa should be playing in a Super Rugby tournament with the best from England and France. ”
Cannot agree more…
This is where max benefit for SA rugby will come from – financially and rugby playing wise…
24 Jan 2013, 09:24 am
@Te Rangatira-80:
Houston…80% loss record in 2012
24 Jan 2013, 09:25 am
@the curse-73:
Bakkies is clueless.
He was found out that his country is not what he has told everyone the other night and now lauging at our 3 super winning teams when SA have only had 1.
24 Jan 2013, 09:26 am
@Heavens Game-83:
I agree you can’t compete down under.
24 Jan 2013, 09:26 am
@NZINCHINA-68:
@the curse-73:
please refer to post #74.
try to keep yourselves together while doing so
we’ve just got started
24 Jan 2013, 09:27 am
@Heavens Game-83:
Howzit Hg….you are exactly right…more money….more wins possibly, win..win situation
24 Jan 2013, 09:28 am
Super Rugby in its current format is just impractical. Expanding it would be ludicrous.
And this has nothing to do with the amount of games played, but the territory the competition covers.
The travel factor will drive players north sooner than we realise. Even splitting the competition up into two groups will do little to curb this.
NZ and Oz will have to go play with the Island teams, Japan and USA – enough money in there for them. SA and Arg should look to Europe.
24 Jan 2013, 09:28 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-87:
You must have missed post 68, the second paragraph.
24 Jan 2013, 09:28 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-65: The purpose of a competition….is for participating teams to actually provide ‘competition’…….
Mid table finishes mean that a team has provided ‘competition’ at times throughout the tournie.
Finishing bottom, means you have providedfuckall except a few laughs….
The S15 by it’s very nature should be a tournie in which NO GAME is a given…..a favourite to win a game – yes, but no GIVENS.
Sadly, some of our Saffa teams have been the ‘givens’ and not the competition for too long….
In a tournament there has to be a winner…..but: there also has to be a certain level of competition provided by those who finish 2nd, 3rd, 4th , 5th and 6th etc in order to make it a decent fight.
What there doesn’t have to be, is a Saffa team or 2; proppingupthefuckingtable year in and year out
“Here’s the deal I’m the best there is. Plain and simple. I wake up in the morning and I piss excellence.” – sadly, this ain’t relevant to our SA teams most of the time.
24 Jan 2013, 09:28 am
@Heavens Game-83:
Couldn’t agree more.
Bakkies well be blasting the Poms for cheating then…
24 Jan 2013, 09:28 am
@Hurricane-79: yes let’s drop it but they were all poached from either Samoa, Australia, Tonga, Fiji and American Samoa. WTH poaching from Australia.
24 Jan 2013, 09:29 am
NZ is the only country where all 5 teams have played in a super final
SARU pushing for expansion because they farked up withy the lions/kings fiasco
24 Jan 2013, 09:30 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-87:
You just do not get it do you.
This is fukn funny.
24 Jan 2013, 09:31 am
@RL-93:
You said drop it but then carried on…. make your mind up
24 Jan 2013, 09:31 am
@the curse-94:
I was wrong then the Highlanders have?
24 Jan 2013, 09:31 am
@Hurricane-77:
what!
hahahaha
are you here for the debate or are you just gonna arse around in the middle and back of the class with the naughty lions?
24 Jan 2013, 09:31 am
They will have to split up the competitions into Premier League, 1st League etc, otherwise we will see too many injuries with amount of games to be played.
24 Jan 2013, 09:32 am
TR
I did warn you about these blokes mate.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.