15th team

[Lee Grant]

Although a 6th South African team would have to play in the Australian conference, it doesn't mean that they will will move over here.

They will play their home games in South Africa and because they have to play home and away in their conference they will have to play the 4 Oz teams in Australia every year (as well as 2 in NZ).

NZ teams will have to spend an extra week in the RSA every now and then and that won't be well thought of by the Kiwis. It would be less of a burden to play that game in Melbourne. If it wasn't part of a tour they could treat it as if they were playing in another NZ city much as they do a trip to Sydney now in the same circumstance.

The Saffer vote will go to their team anyway and Oz will vote for their team. But will the NZRU want another team? They are troubled by falling crowds now and they will have to underwrite the financial viability of a 6th team in a small market. They may be concerned about this happening when their financial reserves may be exposed to RWC deficits.

They may also want to keep Oz onside. The SAffers have made noises about going to Europe and whilst that is not feasible within the competition structure they have in the NH now, you never know what is going to happen later. The Kiwis may see the advent of a 5th Oz professional team as part of a long term contingency - a future Trans-Tasman comp - if the SAffers drop out.

But you never know. Deals unfavourable to Oz could be made. And whilst most Kiwis probably realise that they lost 2003 RWC sub-hosting rights through their own incompetence, there may be some residual bad feeling in the NZRU management and board despite the cleanout.

The SAffers could argue that they could man a 6th team better than Oz could man a 5th team, and that NZ could too, for that matter. So, getting the extra team would be fair to them, but this matter is not about fairness.

 

[Cutter]

Although there is a NZ bid, I understand its not an NZRU bid. As such the NZRU may not, as Lee says, vote for it. They will be unlikely to vote for the Oz bid if they thought it would mean Oz poaching NZ players though.

Lee - I havent read the details, but I would be surprised if the team in the Oz conference wasnt obliged to base itself in Oz. Part of the reason for the conference system is to increase the number of games but not to increase the costs. If the Oz teams had to fly to SA to play this team that may not work.

 

[Lee Grant]

Cutter,

According to a Reuters report the new team doesn't have to be based in Australia, though who knows if they are correct.

Yep, none of the original Kiwi bids were ever going to be run by the NZRU, but to make the numbers crunch out properly in a small market the Kiwi wannabees will probably inflate their revenues and under budget costs. When the SANZAR bean counters look at their figures they will smirk, and ask the hard question about a fall back plan - and would the government and/or the NZ union underwrite losses. For the reasons stated in my previous post the union wouldn't want to be at risk and I doubt if the government would either.

You are right in indicating that the Kiwis will be a bit snakey if NZ players were poached, but an undertaking could be made by the ARU that they wouldn't allow this. Or they could say they would countenance Melbourne poaching a few players unwanted by the 5 Kiwi squads to help get the their team up and running, but that these players would never be considered for the Wallabies, Oz A or Sevens.

Then it would be win, win - for NZ and Melbourne. The Kiwis will get to look at some players for their Super teams the following year that they wouldn't otherwise see at that level, and the ANZC teams may be able to spot a few players at the last minute for their squads later in the year.

The Melbourne franchise would win too. They could get a few handy NZ players to bridge the time span until the effect of Oz players not going overseas, because we have a 5th team now, kicks in. By that time also, a few overseas Aussies who would otherwise stay offshore, will sign up after their overseas contracts expire.

But meantime a bridge will be needed. The ARU will have allow some innovative things to help establish the new team's playing roster. If they bend over backwards for them more than they did for the Force, people will have to understand why. The law of diminishing returns from a limited supply is always a bitch.



[PS The undertaking mentioned above would not apply in the case of Kiwis like Kepu who are eligible for the Wallabies immediately; but that is the staus quo anyway.]

 

[cheezel]

According to a Reuters report the new team doesn't have to be based in Australia

Does this mean if a SA/NZ team got the nod, the Aus teams have to play overseas (at the new teams home ground) in the round robin conference thing at the start of the season or would the new SA/NZ team have to base themselves in Australia somewhere. It would be a massive disadvantage for the Aus teams to tour SA if the Spears get the open spot, while the other conferences are just playing in their own country.

 

[Lee Grant]

Does this mean if a SA/NZ team got the nod, the Aus teams have to play overseas (at the new teams home ground) in the round robin conference thing

Yes.

The new team will play in the Australian conference which means they will play the 4 present Oz teams home and away, but if Reuters is correct, it doesn't mean they have to be based in Australia.

Thus if the Spears got the new team, all four Oz teams would have to play a game in Port Elizabeth every year. Likewise the Spears would have to play in Perth, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane every year. As Cutter indicated: total Super travel costs would increase more than if Melbourne got the 5th team, or even if NZ got the 5th team.

As I write this I don't know if the NZRU has given it's approval for the Taranaki bid to proceed. By all accounts they are lukewarm. If they don't think the numbers will stack up, they won't risk its being put forward to the SANZAR bean counters. If they don't approve the Taranaki bid, the only Kiwi one left, I suspect they will vote for Melbourne, if for no other reason than that if the Spears get it, every Kiwi team will have an extra game in the RSA, in Port Elizabeth, every now and then.

This is why JON mentioned recently that the Melbourne bid had better be stunning in presentation and content to make the decision of SANZAR (read: the Kiwis) for Melbourne, compelling.

 

[Scotty]

Maybe we need to start thinking of the S15 as a club type competition rather than a provincial one. The three unions should be open to selecting players for their respective national teams from any team within the S15, allowing any 3N player to play for any of the S15 teams. This may help reduce the amount of 3N players that move to the northern competitions (although I realise money is still the main factor). This will also help have a more even spread of talent across the S15 (provided each of the unions allow say 3-4 players from outside their own union but inside the 3N to play in each S15 team). And it isn't like the national selectors will find it hard to watch their players games, even if they are playing for a team based in another country.

 

[Lee Grant]

That's an innovative idea Scotty. I have forgotten what restrictions are imposed on SAffer or NZ Super14 teams regarding the employment of players from other unions, but the ARU would have to be the most restrictive with only 2 players per team, one of whom must be a marquee player. So the ball may be in the ARU's court, only.

And as I indicated above: the ARU should allow the Melbourne team a bit more leeway than the established teams in the interest of getting the new team up and running and bridging the gap until the effects of having the 5th team kick in.

Thus the Melbourne team could be allowed a window of grace of 2-3 years to employ say 4 overseas players per year and after that they could come back to the field.

You go further and say that all Oz teams should be able to do this and always (assuming that NZ and RSA teams already can). Normally one would say that Oz would want to save all the Super15 spots for Aussie players, but if the 10 foreign teams would employ as many Aussies as we did foreigners, what the hell - Aussie players would be getting to play a lot in NZ and the RSA and it would do their rugby no harm to be exposed for a spell to the way they do things differently.

The counter to that is because the RSA and NZ have more depth Oz teams would use more overseas players than overseas teams would use Oz players. We could even lose a star or two to the other 2 countries if they play there long enough to get residency. These matters may be killers of your idea.

I don't think that it will stop 3N players going to the NH for the reason you indicate - money. It's hard to ignore that particular elephant in the room.

 

[TOCC]

South Africa and New Zealand are both reluctant to persue such a idea as well, as far as im aware Australian players on average are paid more(at least more then the kiwis), also Australia is quite a attractive option for many kiwis and south africans in terms of living, SARU and NZRU are worried that heaps of players would move to Aus.

 

[Blue]

South Africa and New Zealand are both reluctant to persue such a idea as well, as far as im aware Australian players on average are paid more(at least more then the kiwis), also Australia is quite a attractive option for many kiwis and south africans in terms of living, SARU and NZRU are worried that heaps of players would move to Aus.

Which is a very short sighted view I might add. I think heaps is overstating it and there should be a cap on the amount of foreign players regardless.

I for one find the prospect of seeing players move around a bit quite exciting and if managed properly everyone will benefit.

 

[Lee Grant]

Yeah - whatever happens it has to be managed properly so that all 3 parties are onside - but there could be unforeseen circumstances. A few Oz players from Sydney may fall in love with the lifestyle of JHB, Bloem or Pretoria , and Oz could lose stars to the Boks. Who knows - the opposite could happen too.


Going back to the Washing Of The Spears:

The new system, prior to the finals will have more games in a team's home country than before. If Oz gets the new team the Saffer franchises play only 2 pool games in Oz and 2 in NZ every year - and that's over 16 pool rounds instead of the present 13. They never have to play 5 pool games in this neck of the woods again.

But if the Spears get the gig they will have to play 4 games in Oz every year plus 2 games in NZ. That is 6 games total in Oz or NZ, and SAffer teams moan that they have to play 4 or 5 games in Oz or NZ now; not that I blame them. Then the Spears may have away games in the finals series too.

It's a big ask compared to what other Saffer teams will be faced with - and as cheezel indicated: all 4 Oz teams would have 3 games in the RSA every year instead of 2.

 

[Blue]

Yeah - whatever happens it has to be managed properly so that all 3 parties are onside - but there could be unforeseen circumstances. A few Oz players from Sydney may fall in love with the lifestyle of JHB, Bloem or Pretoria , and Oz could lose stars to the Boks. Who knows - the opposite could happen too.

Lee, you forgot the insert the "sarcastic" smiley

I can't see too many non SA players taking any pleasure from living in those cities but maybe some would rate the experience of say playing with the Bulls as pretty exciting? By the same token some of my tribesmen will really struggle to adapt in these parts so at the end of the day those who end up moving around will, needless to say, be more open and willing to adapt to the environment, culture etc.

Thinking aloud but I really like the idea.

 

[Lee Grant]

Yeah - naughty of me not to put in the smiley, but assumed it was a given.

 

[Moses]

Yeah - whatever happens it has to be managed properly so that all 3 parties are onside - but there could be unforeseen circumstances. A few Oz players from Sydney may fall in love with the lifestyle of JHB, Bloem or Pretoria , and Oz could lose stars to the Boks. Who knows - the opposite could happen too.

Lee, you forgot the insert the "sarcastic" smiley

I can't see too many non SA players taking any pleasure from living in those cities but maybe some would rate the experience of say playing with the Bulls as pretty exciting? By the same token some of my tribesmen will really struggle to adapt in these parts so at the end of the day those who end up moving around will, needless to say, be more open and willing to adapt to the environment, culture etc.

Thinking aloud but I really like the idea.

I've seriously considered doing a spell in JHB or Durban, the lifestyle over there is great and having a maid would be seriously awesome.
My brother in law lives in Durban with his young family, and I've got a good mate in Joburg who's offered me a job and visa.... shame about the crime as that's my main reason for staying put.

 

[Lee Grant]

As expected the NZRU is not putting forward the bid from Taranaki to have the 15th Super team based there. Reuters reports:


The NZRU, who had been cool on a sixth New Zealand franchise entering the competition, said they would not put the Taranaki bid through to governing body SANZAR (South Africa Australia New Zealand Rugby) for further consideration.

"While consideration was given to referring the Taranaki proposal on to SANZAR, it was agreed that an expansion of the number of Super rugby teams in New Zealand would not be in the best interests of New Zealand rugby at this time," NZRU Chief Executive Steve Tew said in a statement.

"We have consistently questioned whether New Zealand has the capacity, either in playing depth or financial resources, to sustain a sixth Super rugby franchise and that influenced our decision."



The Kiwis will probably vote for the Melbourne team but SANZAR is a joint venture and there must be unanimity in the vote.

I could see a compromise whereby Melbourne gets the gig for 5 years but could lose it to the RSA if Melbourne doesn't work out for the competition. By that time, of course, the landscape could have changed, again.

 

[PaarlBok]

The latest release:

SANZAR receives two expressions of interest for the 15th Super Rugby Team


SANZAR has received two expressions of interest from applicants wanting to join
Super Rugby from 2011.

The ARU has endorsed Melbourne as its preferred location for the 15th team and is
now working with the three applicants from Melbourne to prepare a single application
for consideration by SANZAR.

SA Rugby has endorsed the bid from the Southern Kings Franchise based in the Eastern
Cape of South Africa.

Both applicants have been invited to provide more information to SANZAR including a
formal application for entry and business plan. The deadline for this information
to be provided to SANZAR is 25 September.

SANZAR will then review the information received and expects to make a decision on
the location of the 15th team in October.

 

[PaarlBok]

I could see a compromise whereby Melbourne gets the gig for 5 years but could lose it to the RSA if Melbourne doesn't work out for the competition. By that time, of course, the landscape could have changed, again.

Pretty sure they'll make it a S18 (6x3) in the near future to compromise all the countries. As much as I would want to see the Kings getting the nod, it wont make sense costing wise at all.

 

[PaarlBok]

I could see a compromise whereby Melbourne gets the gig for 5 years but could lose it to the RSA if Melbourne doesn't work out for the competition. By that time, of course, the landscape could have changed, again.

Pretty sure they'll make it a S18 (6x3) in the near future to compromise all the countries. As much as I would want to see the Kings getting the nod, it wont make sense costing wise at all.

Look like happening sooner rather then later.

Rugby365

Super 18 may arrive soon
Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:47

The expansion of Super Rugby from a 14-team to a 15-team tournament may be short-lived. It is almost certain to expand to a 16- or-18 team competition in the next five years.

Andy Marinos, the acting Managing Director of the South African Rugby Union, said SANZAR "sincerely hope" to achieve another expansion within the next five-year cycle.

And the addition of Argentina, which will see the Tri-Nations become a Four Nations tournament, was again confirmed for 2012.

Marinos was speaking at a media function in Cape Town where SANZAR confirmed a new broadcast rights agreements for competitions across Australia, New Zealand and South Africa over the five-year period - from 2011 to 2015.

The new agreement is valued at US$437 million, which is a 35 percent increase on the comparable components of the current five-year agreement - which were valued at US$323 million.

Marinos described it as a "significant day" to be able to confirm the extension of the broadcast deal, following a "long and protracted" negotiation process.

Agreements for additional territories such as Europe, North America and Asia are still under negotiation and will add to this total.

Marinos revealed that South Africa's income increased by 34 percent, with New Zealand getting 29 percent more and Australia 35 percent - even though the split of the US$437 million pot was one third each.

"This puts southern hemisphere rugby in a very strong and formidable position," Marinos said, adding that: "It is going to put us on a very firm and sound financial footing going forward."

Asked about the possibilities of expansion after 2011, when it becomes a Super 15, he said they are look seriously at it.

He pointed out that next year, a World Cup year, will produce an abbreviated 21-week Super Rugby tournament to accommodate the global showpiece.

"We won't get a real feel, with the World Cup next year," Marinos said, adding: "In 2012 it will be our first pure season.

"From a SANZAR perspective one of our imperatives is to continue to 'expand, enhance and develop' our competitions to make it the best in the world.

"So we are not completely closed that during the next five-year cycle we could have an expansion - either to 16 or to 18 teams."

He said they "sincerely hope" to achieve the expansion within the next five-year cycle.

As for the addition of Argentina, which would only take place from 2012, he said it remains a "conditional entry".

"While they have just about satisfied all the requirements, there are one or two hurdles we need to get over.

"Those we hope to have resolved by the end of May," Marinos added.

Current SANZAR and New Zealand Rugby Union CEO Steve Tew said the new broadcast deal represent a major vote of confidence in southern hemisphere rugby.

"We believe that rugby is in good health and that its appeal remains strong both in terms of participation and in terms of the interest of our fans across South Africa, New Zealand and Australia," Tew said.

"This agreement underlines that and helps secure the new competitions and deliver them in all three countries and also, importantly, supports the game's funding which allows all three Unions to continue to develop rugby through our investment in the community and amateur game and the retention of our best players and coaches."

* Meanwhile, the proposed changes to the two marquee SANZAR competitions are already well underway.

Melbourne has been confirmed as the 15th Super Rugby Franchise from 2011 in a new conference-based competition.

Tew said the competition changes herald significant new appeal to the fans.

Market research undertaken in the SANZAR territories indicates fans place increased importance on local derby contests – which will be enhanced in the new Super Rugby competition – and support the potential evolution of the Tri-Nations with the inclusion of Argentina.

Australian Rugby Union Managing Director and CEO John O'Neill said 2011 would be a transforming season for the game across the SANZAR territories.

"This new broadcasting agreement, coupled with the exciting changes to take effect in Super Rugby next year, presents an opportunity for SANZAR to further enhance the popularity, profile and public support for the code," he said in a statement.

"The implementation of a new and unique conference format is ground-breaking and it will deliver more compelling Super Rugby on a more frequent basis in each of the three countries. The 'local derbies' concept is one that inspires a sense of tribalism and internal rivalry in each country and we will further capitalise on that through playing those matches on a home and away basis.

"These are encouraging times for the game. We came through a difficult financial period that affected sports and businesses across the globe and have subsequently emerged with a superior broadcast deal to the previous two in place from 1996 and 2006."

 

[Langthorne]

So are we thinking Darwin or Adelaide for the next Aussie (s18) conference team - or maybe Fiji/Samoa/Tonga? or Japan? or maybe an Argentinian team?

I would expect the South Africans to have a Southern Spears (very lame name though) type team, and no doubt NZ could get another team together (though I'm not sure they really need to).

Surely with another expansion SANZAR will throw a bone to our pacific/Southern Hemisphere neighbours?

 

[chief]

Australia and NZ cannot sustain another Super Rugby team. NZ are struggling with the 5th one as it is. All the money they have lost from it and the failure to achieve 5 figure crowd attendances.

If Australia was to ever receive another Super Rugby team, we would have to have won the World Cup recently, and dominated the Tri-Nations. Adelaide could maybe sustain it. Darwin for a Super Rugby team would be impossible.

Japan would be more likely, Argentina for Super Rugby sounds possible, but it's so far away for Aussie teams even though there are conferences.

 

[RugbyFuture]

japan is the least likely of all, i wish people would give up on this japan idea, they're part of a different regional association and have a proffesional setup already around with much more money. if the super 15 expands australia and new zealand would have to look at fiji and samoa for their sixth teams. more importantly the super 15 should stop expanding and completely reformulate itself to accomodate for stronger domestic competitions (and the formation of one in australia) with a european cup end period.