Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Wouldn't work as it'd be 4 professional organisations against two basically amateur teams (Fiji and the cut Australian team).
Maybe the NRC could become a full length semi-professional competition (and hopefully in future it would grow to be fully professional) running from March to September. Then you could at least keep the cut team alive at a reasonable standard, though it'd obviously be on a smaller scale.
If cutting a Super Rugby team is done to implement an expanded and better resourced 20-something week NRC I could just about accept it. Maybe. This decision has made me feel pretty disillusioned with Australian rugby.
N
NTT
Guest
http://www.espn.com.au/rugby/story/...ew-zealand-pressure-cut-super-rugby-franchise
Australia has again been revealed as the weak link in the SANZAAR relationship by bowing to pressure from several areas, including New Zealand, and agreeing to hand back one of its Super Rugby licences while getting nothing in return.
The Australian playing ranks were deeply angered when it was revealed the Super Rugby tournament would be cut back to a 15-team tournament next year and an Australian province -- almost certainly the Western Force -- would be axed.
The players will be furious to discover also that the Australian broadcaster -- Fox Sports -- told the ARU in recent days that its preferred position was the retention of the five Australian teams, including the Force, especially as Perth matches rated well on the pay-TV network.
ESPN has been told by several high-ranking sources that Fox Sports executives were eager for a Super 15 format that excluded the three latest additions to the tournament -- the Jaguares, Sunwolves and Southern Kings. Fox Sports' preference is understood to be a competition involving five teams each from New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. However, Fox Sports was told by ARU officials that "pressure had been applied" to get rid of one of their Australian teams. So Fox Sports relented, opting 'to fall into line'.
Leading the anti-Australian charge were the ARU's New Zealand SANZAAR counterparts.
Australia has again been revealed as the weak link in the SANZAAR relationship by bowing to pressure from several areas, including New Zealand, and agreeing to hand back one of its Super Rugby licences while getting nothing in return.
The Australian playing ranks were deeply angered when it was revealed the Super Rugby tournament would be cut back to a 15-team tournament next year and an Australian province -- almost certainly the Western Force -- would be axed.
The players will be furious to discover also that the Australian broadcaster -- Fox Sports -- told the ARU in recent days that its preferred position was the retention of the five Australian teams, including the Force, especially as Perth matches rated well on the pay-TV network.
ESPN has been told by several high-ranking sources that Fox Sports executives were eager for a Super 15 format that excluded the three latest additions to the tournament -- the Jaguares, Sunwolves and Southern Kings. Fox Sports' preference is understood to be a competition involving five teams each from New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. However, Fox Sports was told by ARU officials that "pressure had been applied" to get rid of one of their Australian teams. So Fox Sports relented, opting 'to fall into line'.
Leading the anti-Australian charge were the ARU's New Zealand SANZAAR counterparts.
Jon
Chris McKivat (8)
That is exactly what they are doing this for. And the best but is that It won't help then one fucking bit! When they're cutting a team before the end of the current broadcast agreement whilst still being paid the same by said broadcaster.
Can review everything you want, but the fact of the matter remains that the money from this agreement has already been contractually allocated.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
N
NTT
Guest
Weak as piss Billy, weak as piss.
Sir Arthur Higgins
Dick Tooth (41)
Very unfortunate.
Well all we can hope is that the force or rebels players get picked up by the balance of super rugby teams and Japan scoops a couple up to ensure this talent is not lost (to say nothing of the future generations...)
On the plus side. The format going forward is more manageable.
Well all we can hope is that the force or rebels players get picked up by the balance of super rugby teams and Japan scoops a couple up to ensure this talent is not lost (to say nothing of the future generations...)
On the plus side. The format going forward is more manageable.
B
BLR
Guest
No fuck em, whatever team gets cut the players should be lost to Australian rugby and the Wallabies burn to the ground.....this is what is deserved for betraying Australian rugby.
chibimatty
Jimmy Flynn (14)
I don't understand the need for cutting any teams if they are going for the 3-conference format, something seems dodgy. 3x6 with a couple of teams outside your conference missing out on playing you; works the same way as 3x5 with a couple of teams outside your conference missing out on playing you. I don't understand the need for the cut of ANY teams, including the Kings, if the conferences are kept.
(I personally favour dropping the Kings, going to a 17-team competition where every one plays each other once, every team goes on muliti-game away tours and every one gets an even split of games eight home and eight away)
There's something very deja vu about the whole thing, kind of reminds of back in 2001-2002. Back then, Australia and South Africa were both angling to expand Super 12 with one more team each. South Africa wanted to bring in a team from Free State, reasoning that they had qualified for Super 12 before anyway.
Australia, at the time, were riding high with the Wallabies winning everything in sight, but losing players to Europe. Not for the current reason of lack of money, but for the reason of lack professional places by having only three Super 12 teams. Australia was grooming Perth for entry into Super 12, as they previously had a strong record in the Minor States Championship and the Australian Rugby Shield, by playing Wallaby match at Subiaco Oval every year since 1998. Melbourne was also being sounded out too, with tests at the MCG and Docklands.
What people may remember at the time, was the opposition from the NZRFU to the entry of both teams, on the charge of "lack of depth." New Zealand claimed that South Africa only wanted another team so that they could match New Zealand's five. New Zealand also claimed that Australia shouldn't seek to add new teams to Super 12, as "Super 12 was not, and should not be used as, Australia's domestic competition." Perth was a "too distant and isolated" outpost and if Australia had to have a fourth team, then they would only consider Melbourne, because of it's location near the rugby heartland on the eastern seaboard; though Australia should really concentrate on developing it's own nationwide competition, rather than expanding Super 12. In the end, New Zealand vetoed the expansion until the next TV rights negotiation after the Rugby World Cup. Leading to a few of us holding up a banner at Wallabies-Maori game at Subiaco Oval in 2002, proclaiming "Hey Kiwis, where's our Super 12 team?" We got it confiscated, I guess we shouldn't have hung it over the advertising hoardings.
What I find interesting now, is that South Africa will go back to four (with no Free State), while Australia keeps a team in Melbourne, but loses Perth, it's 2002 all over again.
So here I am wearing my tin-foil hat and contemplating the Kiwilluminati conspiracy. Well, 3x6 works just as well as 3x5, there was really no need to cut any teams. 6 in SAF, 6 with Jaguares in AUS, 6 with SunWolves in NZ; swapping the Wolves and Jags every year.
So like all ranting conspiracy theorists, I have to ask the question, who benefits? Is the cut really because New Zealand did not want to accommodate a foreign team in their conference? Was it too much to ask for the Kiwi franchises to all play one away game each in Argentina or Japan? Is that what this is really all about?
Or is it that they really want to have more teams (and more professional pathways) than their original Tri-Nations brethren, as it was back in the first ten years of Super Rugby?
Am I turning into a rabid Kiwiphobe like Stephen Jones?!
Hoolly Doolly
Fred Wood (13)
If one team needs to be dropped then have a relegation process. Maintain the core structures to keep all 5 teams in the NRC. Whoever comes last in whatever Super season drops out and displaced by previously relegated team.
Will be a shame if the Force is dropped. Few things to point out.
- frustrating reading about how the force is a drain on aru finances which is only true recently. Pretty sure every team has had a bailout from the ARU at some stage. Even nsw and qld. melbourne has been managed by the the ARU for most of its time. When we become a publicly owned org what then? blame the force for global warming and war in the middle east?
- The force are developing west aussies through the academy. we are seeing a heap of west aussies in the squad past and present and winning the NRC last year is only the beginning of greater things to come.
Will be a shame if the Force is dropped. Few things to point out.
- frustrating reading about how the force is a drain on aru finances which is only true recently. Pretty sure every team has had a bailout from the ARU at some stage. Even nsw and qld. melbourne has been managed by the the ARU for most of its time. When we become a publicly owned org what then? blame the force for global warming and war in the middle east?
- The force are developing west aussies through the academy. we are seeing a heap of west aussies in the squad past and present and winning the NRC last year is only the beginning of greater things to come.
lou75
Ron Walden (29)
lou75
Ron Walden (29)
I count 16 votes:
The 8 member unions are conflicted because they need their funding, so even Vic and WA would need to face that dilemma to vote no so expect 6-8 yes - go ahead with your plans
2 votes for NSW & Qld so they will vote yes
5 votes for Super rugby franchise = 2 or 3 yes
RUPA should vote no - sack the board and reject changes - again some conflict here with ARU controlling much of them too
I count 6 possible no votes which will do nothing to the old guard
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Smh reporting:
"Marinos revealed Australia went into a SANZAAR meeting in London last month with the idea of cutting one of their own teams but said there was no deadline on when the ARU needed to make a final decision.
"Australia's position was the position we've got ourselves into now," Marinos said. "They have supported a change to this competition structure providing that they need some time to determine what team out of their market would be stepping aside."
If true it is further proof, if proof were needed, of the treachery of the ARU board and their operational incompetence.
How could you go to the meeting effectively offering to cut a team and yet not know which team it was to be? If you didn't know who was to be cut you couldn't possibly know the pros and cons of cutting "a" team.
And given they accept their role is as custodians of the game in Australia, how does protecting the Argies and the Japs from a culling fall within that job description?
"Marinos revealed Australia went into a SANZAAR meeting in London last month with the idea of cutting one of their own teams but said there was no deadline on when the ARU needed to make a final decision.
"Australia's position was the position we've got ourselves into now," Marinos said. "They have supported a change to this competition structure providing that they need some time to determine what team out of their market would be stepping aside."
If true it is further proof, if proof were needed, of the treachery of the ARU board and their operational incompetence.
How could you go to the meeting effectively offering to cut a team and yet not know which team it was to be? If you didn't know who was to be cut you couldn't possibly know the pros and cons of cutting "a" team.
And given they accept their role is as custodians of the game in Australia, how does protecting the Argies and the Japs from a culling fall within that job description?
glass half full
Sydney Middleton (9)
It disappoints me that there will be an Aussie team cut from the comp. cannot see how it will not alienate supporters of OZ rugby, and OZ talent, and it will deprive a number of players who get a chance late and prove their worth.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Presumably the answer is money - I assume the pie is sliced according to what percentage of the total content each nation provides. Thus NZ will get more if we have fewer teams.I don't understand the need for cutting any teams if they are going for the 3-conference format, something seems dodgy. 3x6 with a couple of teams outside your conference missing out on playing you; works the same way as 3x5 with a couple of teams outside your conference missing out on playing you. I don't understand the need for the cut of ANY teams, including the Kings, if the conferences are kept.
(I personally favour dropping the Kings, going to a 17-team competition where every one plays each other once, every team goes on muliti-game away tours and every one gets an even split of games eight home and eight away)
There's something very deja vu about the whole thing, kind of reminds of back in 2001-2002. Back then, Australia and South Africa were both angling to expand Super 12 with one more team each. South Africa wanted to bring in a team from Free State, reasoning that they had qualified for Super 12 before anyway.
Australia, at the time, were riding high with the Wallabies winning everything in sight, but losing players to Europe. Not for the current reason of lack of money, but for the reason of lack professional places by having only three Super 12 teams. Australia was grooming Perth for entry into Super 12, as they previously had a strong record in the Minor States Championship and the Australian Rugby Shield, by playing Wallaby match at Subiaco Oval every year since 1998. Melbourne was also being sounded out too, with tests at the MCG and Docklands.
What people may remember at the time, was the opposition from the NZRFU to the entry of both teams, on the charge of "lack of depth." New Zealand claimed that South Africa only wanted another team so that they could match New Zealand's five. New Zealand also claimed that Australia shouldn't seek to add new teams to Super 12, as "Super 12 was not, and should not be used as, Australia's domestic competition." Perth was a "too distant and isolated" outpost and if Australia had to have a fourth team, then they would only consider Melbourne, because of it's location near the rugby heartland on the eastern seaboard; though Australia should really concentrate on developing it's own nationwide competition, rather than expanding Super 12. In the end, New Zealand vetoed the expansion until the next TV rights negotiation after the Rugby World Cup. Leading to a few of us holding up a banner at Wallabies-Maori game at Subiaco Oval in 2002, proclaiming "Hey Kiwis, where's our Super 12 team?" We got it confiscated, I guess we shouldn't have hung it over the advertising hoardings.
What I find interesting now, is that South Africa will go back to four (with no Free State), while Australia keeps a team in Melbourne, but loses Perth, it's 2002 all over again.
So here I am wearing my tin-foil hat and contemplating the Kiwilluminati conspiracy. Well, 3x6 works just as well as 3x5, there was really no need to cut any teams. 6 in SAF, 6 with Jaguares in AUS, 6 with SunWolves in NZ; swapping the Wolves and Jags every year.
So like all ranting conspiracy theorists, I have to ask the question, who benefits? Is the cut really because New Zealand did not want to accommodate a foreign team in their conference? Was it too much to ask for the Kiwi franchises to all play one away game each in Argentina or Japan? Is that what this is really all about?
Or is it that they really want to have more teams (and more professional pathways) than their original Tri-Nations brethren, as it was back in the first ten years of Super Rugby?
Am I turning into a rabid Kiwiphobe like Stephen Jones?!
That raises an interesting question as to whether Japan get $ from our share.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
So what was Rob Clarke smoking at the end of last year?
He must have missed the Shore old boys meeting at which this was discussed
T
TOCC
Guest
just highlights the level of hypocrisy demonstrated by the ARU and utter disregard for the Australia. Rugby supporter..
Fans wanted 5 Oz teams
Foxtel wanted 5 Oz teams
Players wanted 5 Oz teams
But, the Kiwis and SAFFAs wanted only 4 Oz teams so the ARU bow to pressure and allow rugby union in this country to be fucked over..
Pulver and his cronies should resign, even let's say pragmatically, if this were the right decision, the way they have handled it has been atrocious and should take the fall for those reasons alone.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
“SANZAAR is delighted that its major broadcast partners have after due consideration agreed to the restructured format within the existing broadcast agreements. Our broadcast partners are an important stakeholder and their vision for Super Rugby moving forward is the same as ours.”
SANZAAR Chairman, Brent Impey
http://www.planetrugby.com/news/sanzaar-announces-new-super-rugby-format/
So ARU retain whatever their share of the rights money is regardless of the number of Australian teams. Given player salaries are set at 26% of total revenues & there will presumably be fewer players getting paid, it'll be interesting to see how RUPA deal with this windfall.
Truly, deeply gutted for whichever teams get cut (Kings not so much) & I have a view on who that should be but I'll keep that to myself out of respect for the feelings of the various supporter groups on here who must all be hurting right now. Kia kaha, guys.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
So the players who survive will be paid more.
And the ARU saves money on the running of one franchise: they could have financed this in their usual way and hit up the juniors for increased subs
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
TOCC - just re that ESPN article you quoted from - the remainder of it also mentioned that the NZRU do not respect Pulver and have no regard for the competency of the ARU.
Which would not surprise any of us here.
- Status