Sinkers – atlci – Super Rugby

[kiap]

Some tid-bits on a possible Super rugby team in Singapore.

Here's the proposal for an Asia-Pacific team to be based in Singapore. It is led by Eric Series, owner of the Asia-Pacific dragons and chairman of Samoa Water.

http://www.samoaobserver.ws/home/headli ... e-revealed

Player-wise, the backbone of the team would be made up of Pacific Island eligible players, with the rest of the team drawing from every corner of Asia and North America (mainly Japanese, Canadian and American players), but also including any other rugby nomad from the more established rugby countries.

New SSH stadium with retractable roof and air-flow system that keeps the arena-level temperature contolled — (due to be completed next month):

 

[kiap]

Don't know much readies this idea has behind it, but it's interesting reading. From the article:

Asia Pacific Dragons Rugby team holds the key for Pacific rugby players’ involvement in Super Rugby expansion.​

​

The Owner of Asia Pacific Dragons and Chairman of Samoa Water, Eric Series, believes that the Asia Pacific Dragons Rugby Team is the best option to be included in the recently announced expanded Super Rugby competition from 2016.​

​

As a shareholder of the Waikato Chiefs, and with his company Sealegs, also a sponsor of the All Blacks, he is well placed to have a good understanding of the commercial viabilities and requirements of a Super Rugby bid.​

​

. . . "I read recently that Tim Horan wrote the opportunity should not be missed. We agree.​

​

"The issue has always been where the team could play, and how it could work commercially. This is where the Asia Pacific Dragons provides the perfect platform. Pacific Islands players the heart of our squads, with other players being selected from the whole A.P.A.C region – we look at the region as the business world does.​

​

. . . “With direct flights out of SA, Singapore provides the ideal stop-over location into Australia and NZ. The facilities are World Class with a brand new Stadium (opening in June) with a retractable roof and air-flow system that keeps the Pitch level temperature monitored for players.​

​

“This overcomes weather issues in Asia, which during the Super Rugby timings, does have the type of high humidity and heat everyone saw with the British & Irish Lions match in Hong Kong last June. It is also the rainy season.​

​

“In Singapore we would have the roof closed to protect from the elements. From a commercial stand-point, Singapore’s location also provides the perfect ‘gateway’ into the whole of Asia, and the commercial advantages that can bring to the Super Rugby Tournament.​

. . . <snip>. . . ​

 

[Omar Comin']

I like the concept of the team...but the problem would be getting support of the locals without any local players. I think you'd need at least a couple of local players and I don't think there are any Singaporeans good enough.

I'd rather see a Pacific team based in Auckland...and hosting some games in Western Sydney.

 

[kiap]

I like the concept of the team.but the problem would be getting support of the locals without any local players.

Yeah, possibly. — And they don't really have any (well, they do play in schools and have around 15,000 players but not at the top level).

There are also around 75,000 Pom/Oz/Kiwis there which might help, but it's probably not quite enough on its own. On the other hand, the Singapore government are believed to be backing an extra team. And Auckland (or Western Sydney or Southern Brisbane) won't be doing so at this stage.

 

[Omar Comin']

There are also around 75,000 Pom/Oz/Kiwis there which might help, but it's probably not quite enough on its own. On the other hand, the Singapore government are believed to be backing an extra team. And Auckland (or Western Sydney or Southern Brisbane) won't be doing so at this stage.

It's no where near enough considering most of those Poms and Australians wouldn't be rugby fans.

If the Singapore government is backing it that's great, but it won't help the competition if not many people are interested. SANZAR should be more concerned about creating a great competition. Create a great product and the money will follow. Start with the money and a crap product and eventually the money will disappear and you'll be left with a crap product.

The Singapore Slingers basketball team failed. And basketball is a more popular sport in Asia than rugby is. The only factor in rugby's favour is that super rugby is a top level competition whereas the NBL isn't.

Who knows, it could work. I just think Tokyo would be more likely to succeed if you're only going to have 1 Asian team. And that a Pacific Island team would have a lot more support in Australia and NZ than in Singapore.

 

[kiap]

It's no where near enough considering most of those Poms and Australians wouldn't be rugby fans.

I already agreed with you, but if they get ~3-4% it's still three thousand or so. Add 20% of the rugby base and that's another three. Would be a start (the place is quite a big town).

I just think Tokyo would be more likely to succeed if you're only going to have 1 Asian team.

True, but part of this is about getting competition for tenders for that team. From a SANZAR view, Singapore is better located even if the local playing talent is not much chop.

And that a Pacific Island team would have a lot more support in Australia and NZ than in Singapore.

If Australia or NZ could host another team, we wouldn't be having the conversation. The reality is it's not a reality. For now.

The support is already (at least partly) tapped.

 

[Omar Comin']

True, but part of this is about getting competition for tenders for that team. From a SANZAR view, Singapore is better located even if the local playing talent is not much chop.

Personally I think SANZAR is expanding too slowly into Asia. I'd be happy for them to introduce 2 or 3 Asian based teams in one go. But they're not doing that. They're introducing one at most...and into an African conference no less.

Singapore is perhaps a slightly better location from an Australia/NZ point of view (in terms of distance and time zone)...but only slightly. The new stadium, because it's indoor is also probably better than whatever stadium a Tokyo team would play in.

But there's much bigger factors in Japan's favour. Population, economy, rugby history, good local players, corporate support, existing and potential fan base etc.

I just think it would be a pretty ridiculous decision to base a team in Singapore before a team in Japan. Then again, this is SANZAR we're talking about. It's already ridiculous that any Asian team would play in an African conference. If they wanted competition for tenders they should have invited tenders before announcing the exact number of teams and format.

 

[kiap]

Singapore is perhaps a slightly better location from an Australia/NZ point of view (in terms of distance and time zone).but only slightly. The new stadium, because it's indoor is also probably better than whatever stadium a Tokyo team would play in.

Don't forget the 18th team will be in the South African conference.

Not promoting either Singapore or Japan here, just teasing out the options. I'm sure the Saffas want Spain/Saracens or another of their own. Singapore would be middle ground.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think a 7th South African based team is probably more likely. An Asian based team in a South African conference doesn't make much sense.

The whole thing has become one big compromise that doesn't work for anyone. If the goal is to have a global tournament they should be doing it quicker.

 

[kiap]

I think a 7th South African based team is probably more likely.

And do we want that?

I would suggest not.

It'd be better to have 17 teams.

An Asian based team in a South African conference doesn't make much sense.

Nonsense. Does Argentina playing in South Africa make sense?

The logistics are much the same as for Singapore.

Some stooge even wants the Force to play in the SA conference. We should oppose that.

The whole thing has become one big compromise that doesn't work for anyone. If the goal is to have a global tournament they should be doing it quicker.

Forget the global tournament. Forget 2 Asian teams <probably>. These things ain't going to happen in 2016.

It will either be S18 or S17.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

And do we want that?

I would suggest not.

It'd be better to have 17 teams.



Nonsense. Does Argentina playing in South Africa make sense?

The logistics are much the same as for Singapore.

Some stooge even wants the Force to play in the SA conference. We should oppose that.


Forget the global tournament. Forget 2 Asian teams. Those things ain't going to happen in 2016.

It will either be S18 or S17.

I'm just going to throw it out there and suggest that they might as well look to go to 20 teams. Evidently those behind Sarries are interested and then there's the argument for two Argentine squads which makes sense.

Instead of looking to Europe or entering an Asian/West Coast NA team to the SA conferences they could either add a 7th SA team or a second Arg team (I think Arg could do it) and the Asia-Pacific Dragons could enter the Aus conference while either a Japan or the West Coast NA team could enter the NZ conference.

 

[kiap]

I'm just going to throw it out there and suggest that they might as well look to go to 20 teams.

Yeah, but 5 brand new teams locked and loaded in the next 12-18 months?

- Sarries wouldn't be playing their first team.

You'd need 35 x 5 = 175 new pro contracts signed ASAP. It'd be yet more Currie Cup players thrown in. It might be possible over time, but getting so many new players straight away is pushing it. I reckon the competition standard would drop (by even more).

I agree that Argentina has the potential for another team (whether 2016 is too early is the question). If they've got the $$$ and players (but their players are basically the Pampas) then let them bid for the 18th spot.

Otherwise, if there are no standout candidates, then go with a S17. Give that a few more years.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yeah, but 5 brand new teams locked and loaded in the next 12-18 months?

- Sarries wouldn't be playing their first team.

You'd need 35 x 5 = 175 new pro contracts signed ASAP. It'd be yet more Currie Cup players thrown in. It might be possible over time, but getting so many new players straight away is pushing it. I reckon the competition standard would drop (by even more).

I agree that Argentina has the potential for another team (whether 2016 is too early is the question). If they've got the $$$ and players then let them bid for the 18th spot.

Otherwise, if there are no standout candidates, then go with a S17. Give that a few more years.

As I see it, we are already going with three so why not just take the jump to 5. I think it could be done without too much damage to the standard if recruitment was opened up a bit.

From our perspective, there are plenty of PI players plying their trade in Europe who could be lured back to the Asia-Pacific Dragons while combining the Eagles and the Canadain national teams would provide a good base for a West Coast NA squad. I think both of those squads could be brought up to standard fairly quickly.

I also think Argentina could do 2 competitive teams easily enough. They've stated they intend to select the national team from those who play in Super Rugby. Many people quote the money being an issue but I think that will entice quite a number to look to make the move back home. Add to that the guys who walked in for the win in the PRC this year as part of the Jaguars squad and Argentina could provide two sides no worse than the Cheetahs/Lions or Kings. Hell, in quick time I think they'd probably be better.

I actually see this occuring during this round anyway. Probably not in 2016 but possibily from 2017-2019. Steve Tew hinted in an article that broadcasters have already indicated that placing expansion teams into both the Asian and North American markets would return greater levels of revenue for the SANZAR partners.

 

[kiap]

I think it could be done without too much damage to the standard if recruitment was opened up a bit.

Don't agree.

Not in the time that's available. Prospective teams need to seek out backers and put in bids. Just bidding is not enough, SANZAR needs to evaluate them and agree amongst themselves (Good Luck!) and then get things rolling with broadcasters.

This has to pass muster before the teams go onto the market for players.

Argentina can fill a team with the Pampas and the Kings can make up a (wooden spoon) team from SA. Adding one more Saffacen-B/Asian/PI team might be do-able, but three is scraping the barrel.

 

[boyo]

From our perspective, there are plenty of PI players plying their trade in Europe who could be lured back to the Asia-Pacific Dragons while combining the Eagles and the Canadain national teams would provide a good base for a West Coast NA squad. I think both of those squads could be brought up to standard fairly quickly..

The fly in the ointment is IF SANZAR could lure these PI players from the $$$ available in Europe.

 

[Omar Comin']

Nonsense. Does Argentina playing in South Africa make sense?

It will either be S18 or S17.

No, not really. Not as one isolated team anyway, only in SANZAR land. It would make a lot more sense if there were 2 of them.

And how do you expect a S17 would work? A straight round robin where every team plays each other once is not going to happen because the travel would be ridiculous...so what other structure do you think could be organised with 17 teams?

 

[Omar Comin']

Yeah, but 5 brand new teams locked and loaded in the next 12-18 months?

You'd need 35 x 5 = 175 new pro contracts signed ASAP. It'd be yet more Currie Cup players thrown in. It might be possible over time, but getting so many new players straight away is pushing it. I reckon the competition standard would drop (by even more).

Why? All the squads would be recruiting from largely different playing bases.

I think you're underestimating the growing strength of world rugby. And the tier 2 nations struggle to get their best players into professional squads because their only realistic options are in Europe. And there's only so many spots available. The ones that have gone over have thrived.

If the 18th team is your Asia Pacific Dragons it largely cuts out the Japanese. The Japanese could certainly field a competitive team at Super Rugby level. That's 19. Likewise, the US and Canada could field a competitive team between them. Both have been competitive in recent years against the likes of the NZ Maori and Ireland. That's 20.

A 2nd Argentinian team would also work. They have the talent to fill it, especially as they're only going to select the Pumas from domestic based players. I think it would be better to have 2 Argentinian based teams otherwise the Buenos Aires Pampas will be no different from the Argentina Pumas. Perhaps they could also include a handful of the better players from the other unions in South America.

Other options would be Hong Kong, an All Africa team (based in SA), Spain, Saracens etc.

I don't think the global player population is the roadblock. The roadblock is which teams would have the financial backing, which would fit into a logical tournament structure and what markets would add value to the SANZAR partners.

I think SANZAR have held themselves back by announcing a tournament structure before seeking bids. They should have invited tenders with an open mind as to number of teams and structure.