• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

SANZAR/Super rugby future format

Status
Not open for further replies.

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
and ONeil wants the Lions to mereger with the Brutes, dont think that will work after this weekend's result. :nta:

now Watch the Cheetahs at home. Think they played to many warmups and actually beat the Brutes in Pietersburg in the warmups. Hope they get their act together.
 

Lindommer

Simon Poidevin (60)
Staff member
It's on again: JON puts pressure on the Saffers to move towards a compromise.

Article in today's Australian.
AUSTRALIA and New Zealand are prepared to walk away from South Africa if negotiations over the expansion of Super rugby break down.

The three SANZAR partners, which must put forward a new broadcasting proposal to News Limited, publisher of The Australian, by June 30, cannot agree on a way forward. There are differences on the timing and length of an expanded season, and the location of an additional 15th team. Australia and New Zealand want the season to start in March and finish in August, but this conflicts with the South African domestic provincial competition, the Currie Cup.
The South Africans said last week they would support an expanded Super series through to July, as long as it did not affect the integrity of the Currie Cup, which meant Springboks must be available to play in it.

ARU chief executive John O'Neill said Australia and New Zealand had compromised to appease the South Africans, but they could only go so far. "Still talking. It's very ambiguous at the moment," O'Neill said. "All the moving so far has been by Australia and New Zealand. That's the truth of it. You get to a point where you can't move any more. Australia and New Zealand have shifted. At this stage, all we have had out of South Africa is a press release, which I've held up to the light and I still don't understand it. I'm sure we'll hear more this week. It's a very difficult negotiation."

If they cannot agree, Australia and New Zealand would consider creating a trans-Tasman or Asia-Pacific competition, which would not include South Africa. "Inevitably, you always have to have a plan B," O'Neill said. "Our preference is still very much a Super 15, round and a half, what we call the Perth outcome. We have been absolutely consistent about that. Then we shifted to this Sandton option, which was a compromise, and we are still waiting to hear what precisely are the conditions that South Africa are attaching to the Sandton option. If you end up in a complete impasse, then we've got a game in Australia and New Zealand that requires a big chunk of mass entertainment product. If it can't include South Africa, then trans-Tasman, Asia-Pacific options have to be looked at."

The ARU believed it had an understanding with New Zealand and South Africa on the expansion of Super rugby at a meeting in Perth in June, which included a fifth Australian team in a 24-week season. But the South Africans sought an extra team on the Eastern Cape and were insistent any expansion did not affect the Currie Cup, which has its own broadcasting deal.

At another meeting at the Sandton Hotel in Johannesburg, the three partners discussed a compromise that involved a conference system under which all teams did not play each other. "The Sandton option is still Super 15," O'Neill said. "An extra team in the Australian conference and the difference being you don't play everyone. You play everyone in your conference, but in cross-conference, you don't play everyone. It turns out to be instead of 18 regular games, which gives you nine home games, this is 16, which gives you seven to eight home games. We were willing to accept that as a compromise. Then South Africa added these conditions. Start early, don't play through June and no overlap with Currie Cup. That's where we are at at the moment."
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Lindommer said:
It's on again: JON puts pressure on the Saffers to move towards a compromise.

Article in today's Australian.
AUSTRALIA and New Zealand are prepared to walk away from South Africa if negotiations over the expansion of Super rugby break down.

The three SANZAR partners, which must put forward a new broadcasting proposal to News Limited, publisher of The Australian, by June 30, cannot agree on a way forward. There are differences on the timing and length of an expanded season, and the location of an additional 15th team. Australia and New Zealand want the season to start in March and finish in August, but this conflicts with the South African domestic provincial competition, the Currie Cup.
The South Africans said last week they would support an expanded Super series through to July, as long as it did not affect the integrity of the Currie Cup, which meant Springboks must be available to play in it.

ARU chief executive John O'Neill said Australia and New Zealand had compromised to appease the South Africans, but they could only go so far. "Still talking. It's very ambiguous at the moment," O'Neill said. "All the moving so far has been by Australia and New Zealand. That's the truth of it. You get to a point where you can't move any more. Australia and New Zealand have shifted. At this stage, all we have had out of South Africa is a press release, which I've held up to the light and I still don't understand it. I'm sure we'll hear more this week. It's a very difficult negotiation."

If they cannot agree, Australia and New Zealand would consider creating a trans-Tasman or Asia-Pacific competition, which would not include South Africa. "Inevitably, you always have to have a plan B," O'Neill said. "Our preference is still very much a Super 15, round and a half, what we call the Perth outcome. We have been absolutely consistent about that. Then we shifted to this Sandton option, which was a compromise, and we are still waiting to hear what precisely are the conditions that South Africa are attaching to the Sandton option. If you end up in a complete impasse, then we've got a game in Australia and New Zealand that requires a big chunk of mass entertainment product. If it can't include South Africa, then trans-Tasman, Asia-Pacific options have to be looked at."

The ARU believed it had an understanding with New Zealand and South Africa on the expansion of Super rugby at a meeting in Perth in June, which included a fifth Australian team in a 24-week season. But the South Africans sought an extra team on the Eastern Cape and were insistent any expansion did not affect the Currie Cup, which has its own broadcasting deal.

At another meeting at the Sandton Hotel in Johannesburg, the three partners discussed a compromise that involved a conference system under which all teams did not play each other. "The Sandton option is still Super 15," O'Neill said. "An extra team in the Australian conference and the difference being you don't play everyone. You play everyone in your conference, but in cross-conference, you don't play everyone. It turns out to be instead of 18 regular games, which gives you nine home games, this is 16, which gives you seven to eight home games. We were willing to accept that as a compromise. Then South Africa added these conditions. Start early, don't play through June and no overlap with Currie Cup. That's where we are at at the moment."

So what are all these compromises that Jon is referring to?
 
F

formeropenside

Guest
I'd be happy with giving up the ridiculous "5th team" argument, myself. A Japan-based side makes much better sense.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Blue said:
Lindommer said:
At another meeting at the Sandton Hotel in Johannesburg, the three partners discussed a compromise that involved a conference system under which all teams did not play each other. "The Sandton option is still Super 15," O'Neill said. "An extra team in the Australian conference and the difference being you don't play everyone. You play everyone in your conference, but in cross-conference, you don't play everyone. It turns out to be instead of 18 regular games, which gives you nine home games, this is 16, which gives you seven to eight home games. We were willing to accept that as a compromise. Then South Africa added these conditions. Start early, don't play through June and no overlap with Currie Cup. That's where we are at at the moment."

So what are all these compromises that Jon is referring to?
[/quote]
I am confuse here too.

Maybe meaning 3 Conferences x 5 teams playing cross conferense, must add up to 18 (5 +5+ (4x2 own conference home & away)) games & 9 home games. 3 Conference 1 + 2 Conference 2 and + 4 same conference.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Sounds like the compromise is losing two games and thus reducing the season length. Seems it would lead to a ridiculous format though.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Ja sound like stone hard white dog shite. Then you havent even played the business ends. would love to know what how you going to get to that. One log, top4 semis, or three conference log add up to vokol. :lmao:
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Ja sure, great on Marinos and Saru for standing firm on this one. We'll be just fine, still have our CC and a combined one with the NH will be a bonus in our books.

At least Thomo will come and visit more often and it will be great waiting Munster playing the Stormers in Slaapstad.

It also will make sense for our current players playing up north and we'll see the way NZ & Aus will survive with a much kakker product while we will have a good look at playing Saffers anyway up north.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Hmmm, you reckon the clubs will release the players for 3N, or does that go too?
I think you're deluded to think the Euro clubs will welcome SA provinces / franchises with open arms. But good luck , mate.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
The Saffer player that dont make provision for Springbok duty in his club contract is pretty stupid and sure dont deserve a Bok jersey anyway.

I actually dont worry a bit if they dont welcome us, thats our problem and sure if there is money there will be a way. Good luck with a S15 without SA, will see where that one will end.
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
rugbywhisperer said:
The on againg/off again departure of South Africa is getting a bit boring.
Let them go, let them play and enjoy European rugby and we can bring in the Pac Islanders.

http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/news/article/-/5515183/official-saru-looks-exit-sanzar

Yes siireee. Fuck off SA. There's the solution. That solves all of our woes in Australia. We, the mighty ARU, can get more money from PAC than we got from those dirty Saffers. Hahaha, we did all the sums!

We don't need to compromise anything. Who the fuck do they think they are? All we of ask them is to forget about their 100 year old shitty little local comp. How dare they complain?

We need them to help us grow our own game because we have no way of doing it ourselves, and the bastards just won't agree to our terms.

They should learn from the Kiwis. Look, we're slapping them around like the unwanted stepson and not even a peep from across the Tasman. Now that's what we call a partner!

Now all stand up and join me for a group rendition of "If you're looney and you know it clap your hands". Look, Jon brought his ukulele.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Think ONeil do the yakking, but nevermind. :nta:

Still a bit disappointed in Tew and his gang. They'll destroy their own game going with ONeiil , make no mistake.
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Biffo said:
Please, RSA, stop yakking and just eff off.

Who started the yakking? O'Neill did.

Does SA have no right to protect their interests?

I don't agree with how Maronis is goign about it but jeez mate, I hope you're never responsible for negotiating anything.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
PaarlBok said:
The Saffer player that dont make provision for Springbok duty in his club contract is pretty stupid and sure dont deserve a Bok jersey anyway.

I actually dont worry a bit if they dont welcome us, thats our problem and sure if there is money there will be a way. Good luck with a S15 without SA, will see where that one will end.
Well I'm not actually suggesting you guys leave - you lot are the ones threatening to do so. Don't be surprised if people try to call the bluff.
PB, do you and Blue not see the irony just a little bit of what you write? Over on that other place, there is a persistent thread from SA and NZ posters that Aus should just fuck off and / or shut up and SA and NZ can go to their own little comp and will be all the better for it, I mean what do Australia offer?
Are you surprised we might get our backs up a bit? And ultimately what has he done in principle which is so wrong? Suggest some alternatives to potentially grow the comp? Of course they are ideas aimed to help Oz rugby, the body he represents. By all means SARU and the NZRU should argue their positions, and the 3 nut something out. It's called negotiating. Marinos refuses to do so, JON gets everyone's back up, and Tew sits there like a mute.
PB, you praise Marinos for his obduracy yet are happy to condemn O'Neill for his. Is it OK for him to behave like a knob because you have a 100 year old comp? Neither one is doing the SANZAR group any service. They should all pull their heads in.
 

Biffo

Ken Catchpole (46)
Blue said:
Biffo said:
Please, RSA, stop yakking and just eff off.

Who started the yakking? O'Neill did.

Does SA have no right to protect their interests?

I don't agree with how Maronis is goign about it but jeez mate, I hope you're never responsible for negotiating anything.

Just how is having a racially-selected team in an Australian conference of any benefit to RSA?
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Well I can assure you the CC isnt just about 100 years for SA, its our rugby bloodline Boet. Its pretty obvious our structure is a bit different to NZ not even talking about the Aus model. Its much more provincial drive and the rugby supporters around here is much more sticking into CC rugby then any other level.

Marinos have the full backing from Saru and the supporter in this and sure wont back down on this one.

If there is something we do agree about then its been the way all of them is handling this one.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
PaarlBok said:
Well I can assure you the CC isnt just about 100 years for SA, its our rugby bloodline Boet. Its pretty obvious our structure is a bit different to NZ not even talking about the Aus model. Its much more provincial drive and the rugby supporters around here is much more sticking into CC rugby then any other level.

Marinos have the full backing from Saru and the supporter in this and sure wont back down on this one.

If there is something we do agree about then its been the way all of them is handling this one.
So I guess that's a yes to my question about Marinos?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top