Southern Kings OUT of Super Rugby next year

[flat_eric]

I would prefer if Sanzar relaxed the import rules in Super Rugby so each side is free to sign an unlimited amount of Australians, South Africans, Kiwis and Argies. Whether the Argie players would start to leave their lucrative contracts in Europe behind in order to integrate with Sanzar is another story.

As someone mentioned above I agree the best way forward for expansion is through the addition of new conference teams in order to put extra emphasis on 'mini competitions' a la the NFL.

 

[jermano]

I have not seen a lot of Japanese rugby and a lot of players seem to finish up in Japan. Do they have the local talent to compete against the S15 teams?

 

[en_force_er]

I would prefer if Sanzar relaxed the import rules in Super Rugby so each side is free to sign an unlimited amount of Australians, South Africans, Kiwis and Argies. Whether the Argie players would start to leave their lucrative contracts in Europe behind in order to integrate with Sanzar is another story.

As someone mentioned above I agree the best way forward for expansion is through the addition of new conference teams in order to put extra emphasis on 'mini competitions' a la the NFL.

I think those rules come from each country independently rather than for Sanzar. That being said, I doubt having Aussies playing in SA or NZ would really add much to Super Rugby.

Also, Argies are less expensive now. They need to be made available in the Rugby Championship window has lowered their previous market value.

I have not seen a lot of Japanese rugby and a lot of players seem to finish up in Japan. Do they have the local talent to compete against the S15 teams?

The issue is their players are spread over FOURTEEN sides. Even NZ has less sides than that (looking at the NPC).

If they focused their nation's best 50 players over 2 Super rugby teams, plus a fair few internationals, then you'd have some competitive Super Rugby sides. Competitive, but not tournament winners.

They should look at Italy's model (how they put two "Super Rugby-esc" franchises over the top of an existing professional league, but kept the league). It's FAR from an ideal system but it shows that it can work.

It's a big "if" though, their players are pretty attached to their companies in Japan.

 

[flat_eric]

Also, Argies are less expensive now. They need to be made available in the Rugby Championship window has lowered their previous market value.

A good reason for teams to pursue them. Heaven knows a few, if not all of our sides could use the odd Argentinean tight head. I know the argument is that these imports dilute the local talent pool, but at this stage of the game surely a select few would only help with the development of our young players.

 

[en_force_er]

A good reason for teams to pursue them. Heaven knows a few, if not all of our sides could use the odd Argentinean tight head. I know the argument is that these imports dilute the local talent pool, but at this stage of the game surely a select few would only help with the development of our young players.

You're right, but at the end of the day what's the point is playing Argies in Super Rugby versus playing them in French rugby. I can't see any staggering advantages.

I mean, less travel to get to the Rugby Championship but relocating from Europe to Argentina for 2 months of the year compared to relocating from SA/Aus/NZ for 2 months of the year is not a huge trade off.

Let's not trick ourselves into thinking that SANZAR contracting Argentinians is doing them any favours.

 

[daz]

I think it is fabulous that the Kings, Lions and SARU are getting things all organised and finished with a bow-tie.

Just one quick question: Has SANZAR actually come out and supported this move, or are SARU just assuming that they will get what they want?

I was under the impression this was a simple swap of the Lions for the Kings. Since when did it become another team to the comp?

 

[flat_eric]

You're right, but at the end of the day what's the point is playing Argies in Super Rugby versus playing them in French rugby. I can't see any staggering advantages.

Well for one it would reduce the likelihood of players such as Felipe Contepomi choosing club over country. Whether this is an isolated case we will have to sit back and see. I'm not saying having Argentiniens littered through Sanzar sides is ideal, but given the competitions current set up I just don't see an Argie based side working.

 

[en_force_er]

Well for one it would reduce the likelihood of players such as Felipe Contepomi choosing club over country. Whether this is an isolated case we will have to sit back and see. I'm not saying having Argentiniens littered through Sanzar sides is ideal, but given the competitions current set up I just don't see an Argie based side working.

Agree that I can't see an Argie side working.

If a player is willing to choose club over country would you want them for the wallabies? I doubt the Argies would/should want them either.

Now that there is a compulsory availability window for the Rugby Championship I think the only good reason but an Argie to play in Super Rugby is on individual player value.

People decrying Sarel Pretorius' signing and begging for the signing of Argentinians is a double standard that has minimal justification.

 

[Bowside]

I think it is fabulous that the Kings, Lions and SARU are getting things all organised and finished with a bow-tie.

Just one quick question: Has SANZAR actually come out and supported this move, or are SARU just assuming that they will get what they want?

I was under the impression this was a simple swap of the Lions for the Kings. Since when did it become another team to the comp?

Think SANZAR has said "we dont care who the teams are, but you can only have 5 until we expand the comp again in a few years."

 

[Joe Mac]

I would love to see an American team in it from 2016 as well however I cant work out how they could do it logistically.

 

[en_force_er]

I would love to see an American team in it from 2016 as well however I cant work out how they could do it logistically.

Logistically Canada would work much better. As in, they have a much more geographically focused rugby community.

Even still, you wouldn't touch it unless you had a very enthusiastic privet investor.

 

[Joe Mac]

Logistically Canada would work much better. As in, they have a much more geographically focused rugby community.

Even still, you wouldn't touch it unless you had a very enthusiastic privet investor.

My current thoughts are that we could create a separate conference with Japan, HK, US, Canada, Georgia, Argies playing eachother. SA could have their own conference, potentially with another one or two African nations entering. Australia and NZ remain in a third conference. You would then have the top two teams playing off against the best from the other conferences...

It seems the only logistical way for it to work if we want to expand the competition to include the americas and asia...

 

[en_force_er]

That'd be awesome but unworkable for a variety of reasons.

For starters, pairing Asia and the Americas is insane. They are so far away from each other, I'd be begging for the whole thing to fall over given that they'd all be struggling to make ends meet as is. Also, a whole conference of start up teams? Sesh.

As for Georgia, somebody needs to give them control over their professional destiny but it isn't us, they are well entrenched in Eurasia. I'd suggest they should be given a team in the Rabodirect Pro12 and asap.

When it comes to African nations, I can't see that working. All the ones that have the fanbases don't have the economy and the ones that have the economy don't have the fanbases. Would it be cool to have a Madagascarian or Zimbabwean Super Rugby side? Yes but it won't happen.

Sorry to be a devils advocate.

 

[Bowside]

I think America and Japan are too far away from us to be playing rugby against them week in week out.

Furthermore, Japanese rugby is a corporate wank fest. The teams dont make money they are just a form of advertising. It would be a lot harder to include them into an expand super rugby than many realise, and they would not be competitive at all.

The only way I can see this going is splitting the comp into 2 x 10 team conferences, an Aus/NZ conference and a SA/Argie conference.

 

[FrankLind]

A post I read on the fern. (15th Feb this year)

Lions beat the Kings 88-0 last night.
The Kings sure look ready for Super Rugby.

 

[Joe Mac]

I think America and Japan are too far away from us to be playing rugby against them week in week out.

Furthermore, Japanese rugby is a corporate wank fest. The teams dont make money they are just a form of advertising. It would be a lot harder to include them into an expand super rugby than many realise, and they would not be competitive at all.

The only way I can see this going is splitting the comp into 2 x 10 team conferences, an Aus/NZ conference and a SA/Argie conference.

This sounds like a much better strategy than what I originally wrote. The Argies already have a team in the CC and the flight time from Agry to SA is shorter than SA to Perth...

Australia/NZ conference and a SA/Argy conference

 

[en_force_er]

I think America and Japan are too far away from us to be playing rugby against them week in week out.

America, yes. Japan, I disagree. I mean, it's a matter of opinion but you'd only be doing it once a year, even if they are in your conference. It's only 3 hours worse than Perth.

Furthermore, Japanese rugby is a corporate wank fest. The teams dont make money they are just a form of advertising. It would be a lot harder to include them into an expand super rugby than many realise, and they would not be competitive at all.

I don't think anybody is posing that you simply elevate teams from the current structure, more that licences should be sold to investors. Think how Italian rugby is set-up which is far from perfect but can be implemented fairly quickly and seamlessly.

The only way I can see this going is splitting the comp into 2 x 10 team conferences, an Aus/NZ conference and a SA/Argie conference.

I would say that this is the most reasonable and realistic approach that is achievable (maybe 4 Argie teams is a bit far) but I would still like to see an Asian presence, possibly with a large amount of pacific islanders playing for them. A privately owned Tokyo and Singapore team is doable in my mind.

I know people have their eye on Hong Kong because of the 7s but the reality is corporations are moving from HK to Singapore in spades and Super Rugby teams in emerging markets are completely dependant on the corporate dollar.

 

[kronic]

Agree with grouping RSA/Arg and AUS/NZ.

This is something similar to the NFL structure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League#Regular_season

We could use the term conference to describe the franchise grouping within a country and league for the conference groupings.

How would the finals be structured? Would it be an intra-league play-off, to determine a overall winner, so it would be a league vs league final OR would the play-offs be a completely separate competition?

 

[BPC]

Even still, you wouldn't touch it unless you had a very enthusiastic privet investor.

Perhaps a hedge fund?

 

[Braveheart81]

Well played.