Super what?
- Thread starter Shiggins
- Start date
- Status
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
Winning the SA conferences with massive accumulated points from beating the Lions, Kings and an Argie team will mean (I think) that they'll get the advantage of home finals. That will give the Sharks, Stormers and Bulls a massive advantage. Whichever of those teams is on their own in their conference gets a huge leg-up.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
SANZAR will be pleased there's at least 1 person that likes it.
How do you figure it will bring in a crap load more cash? It's going to decrease the amount of content (despite 2 new teams) and TV ratings haven't exactly grown in the last few years. What's going to compel broadcasters to throw in more money? It's not like there's ever been some great competitive tension for the rights either.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
So Argentinian broadcasters are going to pay a huge amount for a competition that will feature one team playing most of their matches in South Africa?
Likewise for a proposed Asian franchise based in South Africa?
From what I've read the Australian franchises need this deal (or the portion they receive) to double the old one to ensure their financial viability. Hard to see but I guess they could pull a rabbit out of a hat.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Another thought. If making a big global competition is the key to the bags of money, why are we doing it so slowly?
What if there's 5 or 6 amazing bids from around the world for this 18th team with big investors or even governments backing them for the long term. Would they still only pick 1 and stick to 18 teams?
Surely step 1 should be the competitive tender process to see what all the possibilities are. With the setting of the format step 2. Similar to how the NRC was determined.
What if there's 5 or 6 amazing bids from around the world for this 18th team with big investors or even governments backing them for the long term. Would they still only pick 1 and stick to 18 teams?
Surely step 1 should be the competitive tender process to see what all the possibilities are. With the setting of the format step 2. Similar to how the NRC was determined.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
According to the Pulveriser quoted in the SMH nearly half sanzar's revenue comes from SA.
I assume that is behind this structure.
Is there still going to be inter conference play?
I assume that is behind this structure.
Is there still going to be inter conference play?
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
I think the big reason for that is the fact games in Australia and NZ are at a watchable time in South Africa, while the reverse isn't true.
So South Africa is essentially getting 50% more product that's of value to their broadcasters.
The question is, are we maximising the value of professional rugby in the much more lucrative Australian market? Personally, I don't think so.
But hey, it is what it is. This is how it's going to be so may as well get behind it. And I think it's even more important for us Australian fans to get behind the NRC. Pulver's hoping the total SANZAR deal, including the money for the 3 third teir domestic competitions will be shared equally. That would be a significant short term win if he achieves that.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
The Australian franchise CEOs were quite vocal that they needed a structure that would stop them from going broke. However this format has less home games and similar amount of overseas travel. Yet they are all unanimous (apparently) in their support for the new structure. I'm speculating, but they can only be happy if there is a lot more money coming in.
T
TOCC
Guest
It's a good system as long as you don't try and explain how it works to someone... Think of the NFL conference system.
Australia has minimum 1 home final each year plus a 2nd team in the finals, potentially a 3rd.
Australian teams only have 2 games in South Africa(or 1 x RSA & 1 x Arg/Jap)
Australia plays every New Zealand team.
I'm not sure how this would impact on the number of games played within the Australasia timezone but at a glance it looks like an improvement.
Australia has minimum 1 home final each year plus a 2nd team in the finals, potentially a 3rd.
Australian teams only have 2 games in South Africa(or 1 x RSA & 1 x Arg/Jap)
Australia plays every New Zealand team.
I'm not sure how this would impact on the number of games played within the Australasia timezone but at a glance it looks like an improvement.
redstragic
Alan Cameron (40)
Just wondering who would go and watch the Japanese team play say the rebels in SA (assuming they are Japanese)?
Not sure about all this. The tyranny of distance in the soithern hemisphere sucks.
Would love to see something that works but the more I think about it the more I think we should be sticking to our part of the pacific.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Not sure about all this. The tyranny of distance in the soithern hemisphere sucks.
Would love to see something that works but the more I think about it the more I think we should be sticking to our part of the pacific.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Benaud
Tom Lawton (22)
There's no way to make sense of it from a competition integrity viewpoint.
The pools being advertised are:
Bulls
Stormers
Kings
Argentina team
Sharks
Cheetahs
Lions
Tender team
Aussie Teams
NZ Teams
We know from Super Rugby history that new teams come last every time pretty much without exception. And the Lions have never finished outside the bottom 4. All of those teams have been placed in the 2 smallest pools. In addition these pools only play one of the Aus/NZ conferences each year.
So in a 2 year-cycle, the top 4 South African sides will play:
A new minnow/Lions - 12 times
Other South African side - 8 times
An Aus/NZ team - 10 times
Australian and New Zealand sides will play:
A new minnow/Lions - 4 times
Other South African side - 4 times
An Aus/NZ team - 22 times
So we have a situation where the smallest pools have drastically easier draws, ensuring the winners of those pools occupy the top 2 places in the finals by design. This further ensures that the only way the title can go outside of South Africa is if both of the best South African teams lose finals at home.
I don't think anyone could possibly dispute the inherent biases towards the top South African sides in this plan. That's the trade off Australia and New Zealand have accepted here with the hopeful return of more money.
The pools being advertised are:
Bulls
Stormers
Kings
Argentina team
Sharks
Cheetahs
Lions
Tender team
Aussie Teams
NZ Teams
We know from Super Rugby history that new teams come last every time pretty much without exception. And the Lions have never finished outside the bottom 4. All of those teams have been placed in the 2 smallest pools. In addition these pools only play one of the Aus/NZ conferences each year.
So in a 2 year-cycle, the top 4 South African sides will play:
A new minnow/Lions - 12 times
Other South African side - 8 times
An Aus/NZ team - 10 times
Australian and New Zealand sides will play:
A new minnow/Lions - 4 times
Other South African side - 4 times
An Aus/NZ team - 22 times
So we have a situation where the smallest pools have drastically easier draws, ensuring the winners of those pools occupy the top 2 places in the finals by design. This further ensures that the only way the title can go outside of South Africa is if both of the best South African teams lose finals at home.
I don't think anyone could possibly dispute the inherent biases towards the top South African sides in this plan. That's the trade off Australia and New Zealand have accepted here with the hopeful return of more money.
There's no confirmation as to what that tender team will be, as placed in the 2nd SAF conference. It'd be a shame if it was Japan though. I'm assuming they still suffer from a lack of size in the pack and rely on a more mobile game? Imagine them against those pick SAF packs every week.
They would be better served over here. Perhaps the Force go into that conference instead. Seeing as they don't care about local derbies.
They would be better served over here. Perhaps the Force go into that conference instead. Seeing as they don't care about local derbies.
tigerland12
John Thornett (49)
So the South African Union clearly has the biggest say in SANZAR judging from this decision.
All win for them.
All win for them.
I'm not entirely convinced that's the case. I think there's several elements of compromise here that potentially make the whole thing worse.
SARU and NZRU's favoured position is a single round, round robin competition. They've both said this on several occasions.
The ARU wants as many local derbies as possible and subsequently we've seen most of those retained.
NZRU seems to have stayed mostly silent on most issues and are going with the flow. They've made it clear they want to stay in a competition with South Africa.
The 5 teams from Australia/NZ in the final series is the one carrot that makes this potentially more equitable.
Structures can and do change so I'd be guessing that if a South African team comfortably finishes first in the first couple of years and then plays home finals all the way through to win, they might try and work out a way to rejig things to even up the playing field.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Richie, do you have a link to these advertised pools, please?
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
agreed. an unnamed AUS ceo (I suspect it was Jim Carmichael) said after the announcement but before the meeting with the ARU that the whole idea sounded absurd and he wasn't for it. Then he came out of the meeting all smiles and saying the ARU showed them the income distribution it was a good compromise and he was excited about the new comp starting. Given that, I suspect BP got a better than fair share of the total income distribution.
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
this was what was shown on Rugby HQ last night
- Status