South Africa's Bulls captain Victor Matfield gestures to the fans after winning the semi-final of the Super 14 rugby match against New Zealand Crusaders at the Loftus Versfeld stadium in Pretoria, South Africa, Saturday May 23, 2009. The Bulls defeated the Crusaders 36-23. (AP Photo/Themba Hadebe
The fact the SANZAR is sending the decision for the 15th team to arbitrators shows up SANZAR for the farce it is. Did anyone think that it would be any different?
Are they both so gullible, stupid and ignorant that they really thought that one would vote for the other?
What a waste of time and and embarrassment for rugby.
What is, or was, New Zealand’s stance? How much money has been spent? How many lunches, dinners and stays in extravagant hotels did they enjoy?
I’m not certain about how they work anything much out, but seriously this looks really really stupid and doesn’t justify a long thought out article, merely the creation of a forum for anyone else who thinks this whole thing is a farce to let rip and vent their exacerbation, no matter which side of the fence you’re from.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super 15
October 22nd 2009 @ 8:04am
Brett McKay said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
I should have added before that my main concern now (apart from no new team being admitted, and the SUper 14 remaining) is just how long this arbitration process will take. In the statement yesterday, it was suggested that someone (a Sydney QC in some reports?) will be appointed in the coming weeks.
The coming weeks?!?! Theoretically, this new team will be playing its first game 15 months time, and that’s assuming a decion is made before the end of this month (which I’m certainly not holding my breath about). Will the new team be given enough time to set up, appoint coaches, recruit players etc??
October 22nd 2009 @ 8:21am
Redb said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
So the timing has not been determined?
Like you said it doesn’t allow much time to get it up and running
Gary Gray (VRU) was on SEN radio yesterday talking about attracting some high profile players to ensure that from year one the Melb Rebels will be competitive.
Redb
October 22nd 2009 @ 8:44am
Brett McKay said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
not that I’ve seen or heard Redb, no..
The only thing that’s been stated about arbitration is that appointment will be made “in the coming weeks”. Presumably, this means they’ve got someone in mind. Hopefully, that someone knows about this, and is/was willing to act as the arbitrator when asked.
But as for how long the process could take?? Well, who really knows; this is SANZAR remember…
October 22nd 2009 @ 8:46am
Redb said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
What exactly is the arbitration process and why will it break the deadlock of votes on SANZAR?
October 22nd 2009 @ 11:34am
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:34am | Report comment
redb, i seem to recall seeing reference to a hearing in a month. arbitration is meant to be quick, especially if they use the new quick track system.
October 22nd 2009 @ 11:25am
Brett McKay said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
sorry Redb, I’m not sure of the process, in fact I don’t know that it’s been publically explained anywhere…
October 22nd 2009 @ 12:07pm
Brett McKay said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Redb, Bay: Wayne Smith touches on this today. Seems that arbitration may yet be required to decide who hears the arbitration proceedings…
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26242844-5015651,00.html
Something I’ve learnt here: SANZAR is registered, based, and governed by the laws of NSW (so presumably they take up a meeting room in St.Leonards..)
October 22nd 2009 @ 12:24pm
Redb said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
thanks Brett, sounds like the blind leading the blind.
What a bizarre set-up, outsourcing decisions?
October 22nd 2009 @ 7:58pm
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
Brett, appointment of an arbitrator when the parties can’t agree is unusual, but easily dealt with. I don’t think Smith understands the process. You go to the arbitrator body agreed to under your joint venture agreement (which they named) and ask them to appoint one that has relevant experience. That isn’t arbitration. I think Smith just wanted a catchy headline. The only down side is you usually waste time arguing about the arbitrator, so they could waste a week or two back and forth before they can say they have been unable to agree.
October 22nd 2009 @ 8:19am
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Leftarm your in for it when the South African roarers see your post mate I look forward to seeing their reaction.
Reality is this whole debacle is a great laugh and more time wasting and also wasting of money that could potentially have gone elsewhere like grassroots rugby.
It would’ve been downright stupid for a country to request a team then vote for their opposition like HELLO people it was always going to end in a stalemate. I can’t believe they even had the meeting what an almighty cock-up and once again shows how inept SANZAR is.
I personally don’t believe either nation deserves another team to be frank. Australias showings in recent years have been well below par and for a country as obsessed with Rugby as South Africa theirs are not too much better.
Lets look at purely the super 14 results and South Africa doesn’t look as bad due to having won two tiltes however their overall performance throughout the entire super competition has been nigh on appalling considering how much rugby is followed in SA.
Key = Finals / Bottom 7 / Bottom 4 Total Bottom 7 Total Bottom Four (16 places in total)
09 08 07 06 TB7 TB4
Aus 0/2/1 1/3/1 0/2/2 1/2/2 9 6
S A T1/3/2 1/3/2 T2/3/2 1/3/2 12 8
NZ 3/2/1 T2/1/1 2/2/0 T2/2/0 7 2
Super 12 Bottom Six / Bottom Four
05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 TB6 TB4
Aus 1/1 2/1 1/0 2/0 1/0 2/1 1/0 1/1 2/2 1/0 14 7
SA 3/2 2/1 3/3 4/3 3/1 2/2 3/2 3/3 2/0 2/2 27 19
NZ 2/0 2/2 2/2 2/1 3/3 2/1 2/2 2/0 2/2 3/2 22 17
When looking at these results for the Super 12 one has to take into account that NZ had five teams, South Africa 4 and Australia 3
The statsistics tell me that the only country who could support a team playerwise is NZ however financially it possibly wouldn’t work. I believe until Australia and South Africa start performing on a cinsistant basis neither should get the team and the status quo that is the Super 14 should be kept as is!!
October 22nd 2009 @ 8:33am
Michael C said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
SthAf point out they have 74 players over in England/France compared to Australia about 20. And only 5 teams with 14 domestic Unions. The NZ proposed teams fell under the Hurricanes catchment anyway….although they had depth too.
REalistically, the lack of depth is in Australia,
Victoria has no depth to speak of,
and the Wallabies can’t even crack FTA in Melbourne before 11.55 pm.
I can sure as heck understand the SA votes NOT going to Australia!!
October 22nd 2009 @ 12:45pm
Working Class Rugger said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
Michael C
Sorry mate but you assertion that Australia only has about 20 player’s in England/France is inaccurate. There are some 150 Austrlian player’s capable of returning that are currently plying their trade overseas.
October 22nd 2009 @ 9:17pm
Justin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
Do you know any VIC players paying S14? And can you name any from Perth?
Cheers
October 22nd 2009 @ 10:42pm
Working Class Rugger said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
There are several who originate from Melbourne. One such is our new Wallaby captain. Yes, he left when he was only young. But Elsom is an example. Ioane and Leilafano are other’s. As for WA. I can’t think of any regular starters. However both Haylett Petty and Longbottom from the Force have both played Super Rugby. Plus there is a young bloke by the name of Kyle Godwin who featured for the Aus Schoolboys this year in the pipeline at the Force. They aren’t there yet but the WA Rugby player’s are coming.
October 22nd 2009 @ 10:53pm
Justin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:53pm | Report comment
WCR – sorry those questions were meant for MC…
October 22nd 2009 @ 11:08pm
Working Class Rugger said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:08pm | Report comment
No worries.
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:12am
Gary said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:12am | Report comment
Junior Rugby in Perth has exploded since the arrival of the Force. There are lots of talented youngsters who will start appearing in the Force in the next few years.
October 22nd 2009 @ 8:54am
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Hi Hermin.
I agree that expansion arguments based on player stocks and better performing nations would always come to the same conclusion you have. Neither SA or OZ “deserve” another team.
But this isn’t just about the game of rugby. Expansion has more to do with the business of rugby. The SANZAR members know that the northern comps are the real competition. They are continully looking to increase their revenues to ensure they keep their top players at home. If they fail to do this the northern comps will happily drain them away. And we all will be left with a second rate international comp.
SA has the population (and i mean to generate advertising rev) but not always the wealth ie standard of living. but it has loads of players. but not the performance on field you’d expect over the long term.
NZ doesn’t have population but a good standard of living. lots of quality players and great on-field performance.
OZ has the medium size pop with the highest levels of personal wealth, but the least number of players, and not the best performance record either.
From this you can see how these countries need each other. The ANZC is dearly loved but cant generate enough in TV rights and advertsing to keep in financially viable. That tells you something about the revenues available in NZ for rugby.
Too often these discussion get bogged down in arguments and chest thumping over who has the most and best players. But we all need to considered that our leading test players are continually being tempted with wads of Euro, Pound and Yen.
The SANZAR nations fight this with Super and TN cash and Test jerseys (SA excluded).
October 22nd 2009 @ 11:45am
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Redb, this issue about depth is a bit misleading, as no country has or can ever have depth. The issue is who can provide it quickly.
No country has a spare team or Super 15 players lying around waiting to be called on. References to players in Europe are misleading, as they are usually on better money and long term contracts. You might get a handful back at most when you set up a new Super team, thus delivering “Super level’ players.
SAF can provide professional level players, from their Vodacom Cup and Currie Cup teams, but they aren’t Super Level. And the lack of competitiveness from 2/5 SAF teams on and ongoing basis is an issue (although this can be levvelled at all 3 countries most of the time – someone has to be the losers).
Similarly NZ can provide NZC players, who are technically professional.
Australia can only provide club rugby players, who are at best semi-professional. As such, they have the biggest step up out of the 3 with expansion. However, the clubs have a history of being able to provide players that can over the years.
As such, this question of “where will Australia’s extra players come from?” is answered by “where they always come from – club rugby (despite the ARU’s tripe about other sources).
If the 3 conference system hadn’t have been viable (i) the ARU wouldn’t have committed to providing a 5th team, and (ii) the other 2 should have used this as an objection.
Depth is not the main argument here, or if it was it was conceded by SANZAR long ago. The issue here, Political or not, is that SAF (and government via the SARU) wants to have their cake and eat it too. They agreed to a system clearly based on 5 Aussie teams, and now want to look after themselves. And if they want to defend it on the basis everyone has to look after themselves, then we may as all give up now, and what was the point of setting up SANZAR 14 years ago? You need to be able to trust your business partners.
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:16am
Gary said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:16am | Report comment
Two of the existing Saffer sides are a joke. Most of the Academey sides could give them a run for their money and would beat the Kings hands down. They simply would not be competitive.
Its just a joke.
October 22nd 2009 @ 11:28am
LeftArmSpinner said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
hermin, that my point. they have underachieved when you consider the quality of individuals they have had. it is only in the past few years that they have been brought together. thank White, Matfield, Smit and, dare I say it PdV.
October 22nd 2009 @ 3:28pm
JK said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
Take the Crusaders out and it looks pretty even, I know a simplistic view but………………..
October 22nd 2009 @ 8:22am
Angus said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
The way the ARU messed up the bid with their political games against the VRU they don’t deserve the extra team. The want the team based in Victoria but controled by NSW. There is still alot of rubbish to come if they are successful. Watch this space!
October 22nd 2009 @ 8:28am
Michael C said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:28am | Report comment
I can’t help but feel the SARU case for the SOuthern Kings is pretty compelling.
Melbourne is more speculative.
Perhaps they just need to do 15 and 16 at the same time??
October 22nd 2009 @ 8:55am
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
MC
It’s not compelling when viewed from the context of the three conference system that has been bandied around – in fact, in that context, it makes zero sense.
October 22nd 2009 @ 9:07am
Michael C said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
The 3 conference system – does it need to be a nice even 5 teams each? That’s ‘dots on a map’ mentality.
That’s not really playing to the strength….which is RU in NZ and SA. Australia’s the weakest partner really.
Fair enough trying to hitch it (Australia/Melbourne) up to a degree, but, RU in RSA is going to be facing very big challenges going forward from soccer especially.
And it’ll take a while for Melbourne to be a real financial contributor one would have thought.
October 22nd 2009 @ 9:19pm
Justin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
Dots on a map? Sounds like the AFL, lets runs with it!!!
October 22nd 2009 @ 10:00am
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
No – I disagree that it’s dots on the map mentality.
If you have a situation where 5 Australian super teams are playing each other more often, that builds greater recognition of those teams than happens now (where the Brumbies might go to SA for 2 or 3 weeks and disappear off the face of the Earth, media wise).
Super rugby is a fantastic comp – but in Australia, there are large swathes of the season when it’s invisible.
Take the Brumbies, whose fans love to play the Reds and Waratahs, but at the moment they get just one home game against one or the other – it’s simply not enough.
Also since the inception of super rugby, there has been an odd number of rounds, so at the moment each team gets 6 or 7 home games, alternating each season – far better to have a situation where everyone can have the same number of home games (and also more home games against teams from your own country).
October 22nd 2009 @ 9:26am
Redb said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
no way. SAF already has 5 teams, NZ 5 teams, they’re talking about putting a SAF team in the Australian conference – go figure??
Redb
October 22nd 2009 @ 11:28am
Brett McKay said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
And MC, the pitch to broadcasters back in June (that was accepted) was for three five-team conferences. News Ltd have also indicated that the broadcast rights could be valued higher if a new market (Victoria) was granted the new team, rather going into an existing market.
October 22nd 2009 @ 11:51am
Michael C said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
However, the ‘new market’ in Victoria, ideally followers of RU are already signed onto Foxtel because they can’t see the game otherwise.
Cracking the broader Vic market with Storm and MVFC already fighting around the fringes…one can’t help but think the ARU missed the boat 5-6 years ago.
Surely, whilst SA for example is an existing market – - greater servicing of that market will increase value for the Supers Competition. LIkewise NZ. More games of interest within the strongest markets. So long as those markets aren’t saturated.
October 22nd 2009 @ 1:55pm
Redb said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
I don’t buy that argument.
Success on the field drives interest for awhile but people are always looking for something new. Victory have attracted 50,000 to their games against Sydney but in recent years have only been able to get 30,000 – still good but it shows the bandwagon pulling up.
If Melb Heart get Viduka its possible the second Melb HAL team will be the new thing.
Storm currently riding some success with a new stadium will go Ok whilst they’re winning, but what happens when they finish out of the finals? back to normal transmission.
Rugby union unlike rugby league but not as significant as soccer has an untapped market for fans to get involved in Melbourne. It’s not entirely virgin territory – they will have a narrative: 100 year local comp, in schools, Wallabies,etc.
I have no doubt given some success they will find a market, it might cannibalise the Storms especially Kiwi following, but the seasons dont overlap too much anyway. If Storm fades, Rebels will take up the slack.
The new stadium is the perfect vehicle.
Redb
October 22nd 2009 @ 1:26pm
Brett McKay said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
MC, I don’t actually disagree with you too much. I’m just repeating what happened back in June, and what News Ltd have said recently..
October 23rd 2009 @ 12:20am
John Ryan said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:20am | Report comment
Don’t NEWs Ltd have a habit of saying what you want to hear as RL learned to the sorrow,why on earth would they be any different with Rugby Union Murdock will promise you the sun, the moon and the stars, it just the money and delivery hes a bit short on..
Sport to Murdock is a subscription driver and I don’t think RU has that much of an attraction as a driver,look at the top 100 shows on Pay how many RU super 14 games,how many AFL, NRL in the top one hundred,then you have FTA,I dont see any of the Commercial networks beating a parth to the RUs door.
It will be interesting to see which way the fiddlesticks fall.
October 22nd 2009 @ 11:42am
LeftArmSpinner said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Michael c, what illicit substance are you on? There are certan things already locked in and not the subject of arbitration:
1. there will be a three conference structure. more local derbies, less travel for starters.
2. the 15th team will play in aust conference
3. the 15th team, whether Aust or SA, is a brand new team/franchise/club with no current supporter base or TV audience.
4. It is a decision driven by maximising the TV rights
Are you really saying that a SA team in the Aust conference, out of its geographic supporter base time zone, (SA supporters of the Kings would have to watch half of their matches the 7pm AEST game at 10am on a Friday or Saturday morning, a quarter at 8am and the final quarter at regular local time. Name me one other prof. sporting team IN THE WORLD who broadcasts their home games at 8am or 10am on a friday or saturday morning.
October 22nd 2009 @ 8:40am
formeropenside said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
A 15th Super team should have been Japan or the PI, or even the Argies. Its not hard to figure this out.
October 22nd 2009 @ 8:53am
Alan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Rugby administration is a complete shambles! From the ELV debacle to stadium facilities to attendance prices to the way the competition points systems have distorted winning versus losing. But don’t get me started!
This farcical SANZAR situation was predictable, from the time they decided to accept bids from multiple countries.
When SANZAR decided to go to 15 teams, it should have been decided there and then that each of the 3 nations would have 5 teams, and it would be up to ARU to decide who would get the fifth team in Australia.
And here we are , 14 years after its inception, yet there still isn’t a SANZAR website where disgruntled rugby supporters (and there are a growing number of them) can get the message to those (not) making the decisions! Hopeless!
October 22nd 2009 @ 9:16am
stillmissit said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
We are left in a situation where we are chasing a team and the basis for success is just not there.
If I was running the ARU I would have people going round the elite schools bolstering support for rugby and trying to get more schools in the marginal areas of Sydney and Brisbane to play, therefore creating a future player pool.
Trying to get schools in Melbourne to adopt Rugby would be pushing it uphill I bet.
October 22nd 2009 @ 9:22am
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
And yet – Melbourne has produced some great Wallabies in the past – imagine what’s possible if we have our own super team?
October 22nd 2009 @ 9:43am
True Tah said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
I cant believe some of the tripe being written on here, and the amount of anti-South African sentiment is staggering.
The issue is that Australian rugby has relied on our international partners to keep the sport alive here in Australia. In the 1950s, the Fijians saved the ARU financially, and how have we repaid them? The All Blacks certainly assisted throughout our rugby history by providing a common enemy, and to a smaller degree the Springboks and the British Lions, who had the good grace to stop off in Australia to help us out on their way to the real challenge in New Zealand.
The reality is, these masked the main weakness of Australian rugby – the lack of a proper domestic competition. When the Boks were kicked out, they developed their Currie Cup, which is probably the strongest domestic rugby competition in the world now. In other words, they were forced to develop things. Australian rugby never had to.
Now some of you are blaming the South Africans for looking after their own interests, and asking the Kiwis to accommodate us in their competition, despite the fact the NZRU is able to chop four teams!!!
The facts are that South Africa brings the lions share of Pay TV revenue to SANZAR, and that Australia receives more than its fair share.
Its clear that Australia needs it own equivalent to Currie Cup or Air NZ Cup. The main issue seems to be financially unsustainable. JON has made it clear he will not tolerate any private equity parties controlling any professional outfits in the country.
October 22nd 2009 @ 9:48am
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
And the fact this time is that the Pay TV revenues will be greater for a Melb team. News Ltd make the decisions. SANZAR just get to announce them.
October 22nd 2009 @ 9:58am
Michael C said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
will they really (Pay TV revenues)?
by how much? and would that be sufficient?
basically – - does the business model stack up??
October 22nd 2009 @ 10:31am
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
My understanding is that under the S15 deal, SAF gets the revenue from their domestic comps, which was always the case. Further, under the previous deal, they always got more because they provided more (teams and comps). Please quantify the SAF “subsidy”.
October 22nd 2009 @ 10:36am
True Tah said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
No, the Currie Cup Pay TV arrangement is separate to Super 14.
October 22nd 2009 @ 10:51am
Sam Taulelei said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Bay
Previous SANZAR contract with News Corp was selling SANZAR rugby as a single commodity which consisted of :
Tri Nations
Super rugby
Currie Cup competition.
SA received a higher share than their partners because of the additional revenue Currie Cup rugby generated
Proposed deal is selling SANZAR rugby competitions as individually costed entities in the hope of generating a broadcasters bidding war, and News Corp have the first right of refusal. Each country would then receive an equal share of revenue from the rights sold for each package. SA has already onsold the rights to the Currie Cup to a different broadcaster which NZ and Australia will not receive any revenue from. I believe the same will also be true when NZ sells the rights for ANPC rugby, SA and Australia won’t receive anything from that deal.
So Australia’s take from the new deal will be a greater share of the pie than before, however the true value of the deal may actually be less for the ARU as they don’t have a local competition yet to sell to broadcasters unlike SA and NZ. Australia needs a longer Super rugby season in lieu of a local competition to fill the gap after Super rugby previously finished and they also need the Wallabies to play more offshore tests so they can receive portions of the gate takings and broacasting rights.
The ARU’s pyramid is upside down with little or no base foundation.
October 22nd 2009 @ 10:54am
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:54am | Report comment
great explanation Sam.
October 22nd 2009 @ 11:30am
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
TT & Sam, that’s what I though. Sam explained it well.
My point is, some are suggesting the ARU was getting more money and SARU less than they should. The cut was calculated based on what each Ru brought in. ARU brought least so it got least. With the new deal it will be more transparent, as it will all be separate. If the split was unfair, can you see the SARU agreeing to is previously/ No, me neither. So that issue is a furphy (as well).
October 22nd 2009 @ 11:51am
LeftArmSpinner said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:51am | Report comment
TT, dont confuse observation from experience with anti SA sentiment.
But, you put a team in Melbourne, then go and hire a group of 20 best AFL kids, put em in private schools down in Melb and see them come through. Get some backs, some tall timber and some fetcher/backrowers. You can throw in some chub chubs but they are unwanted by AFL anyway. creates local interest and shows the kids there is a path in rugby that takes them around the world for great and at least comparable money.
Put $1m on the table and you get 25 kids a year flooding into the Vic schools programme, Melbourne grade and then onto the Rebels and wallabies. better value than a Tahu. Yes, yes, yes. I know the monies come out of different pots……Take a pill Dempsey.
October 22nd 2009 @ 1:59pm
Redb said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
“I cant believe some of the tripe being written on here, and the amount of anti-South African sentiment is staggering.”
Well maybe it has something to do with the 15th licence being part of the Australian based conference and the South Africans wanting to put their team in it?
Redb
October 22nd 2009 @ 2:20pm
True Tah said | October 22nd 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Redb
it just seems that there is a smug arrogance within Australian rugby that everyone will bend over backwards to compensate us for our weaknesses. More than a few journalists have come out and said that the struggling Air New Zealand Cup is crying out for Australian participation, and who are clearly ignorant that their has been a resurgence in interest in this seasons competition, and more Kiwis are interested in this comp than super rugby.
I think the South Africans would be well within their rights to take their ball and focus on Currie Cup.
I think the ARU must have some pretty good negotiaters for tricking the Saffas and Kiwis into keeping us on life support for almost 15 years, having said that, given that a rather large % of TV money goes to the players, RUPA are pretty good negotiaters.
October 22nd 2009 @ 2:30pm
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
TT you are right about the oz partcicpation in ANZC. that is the last thing the kiwi’s want! those reporters are well off the mark.
The point about negotiators and tricking is interesting. there is this belief that Oz get their way all the time. is this true? and how could it be? we are in the worst bargaining position of the three members.
I think either NZ and SA are worse adminsitrators than the ARU for letting themselves be ‘tricked’, or they actually want all this expansion but dont have the guts to tell their supporters cos the supporters actually prefer their own domestic comps. I find it all a bit baffling….
October 22nd 2009 @ 9:24pm
Justin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:24pm | Report comment
You forget that the conference system benefits everyone and SANZAR want it. How that means everyone is bending over backwards to help us I am not sure…
October 22nd 2009 @ 9:56pm
Wooded said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
Digby Ionne, Christian Lealafino, Rex Tapuai, john Unugia, Lloyd Johnason, Tamati Horua, David Fitter, David Palavi are just some recent ones.
Most of the talent moves to Sydney or overseas,(club level) why wouldnt they, as the vic comp is not strong enough for them to stay.
4 players selcted in Australian Schoolboys this year. Regular good performances at u16 and schoolboys level.
Imagine the extra growth when the team is won by MEL. and then the talent stays, and then the club comp gets better, and then more stars are produced, the snowball grows.
October 23rd 2009 @ 4:36am
Altus said | October 23rd 2009 @ 4:36am | Report comment
Rubbish. The extra local derbies in conference system will add viewers in SA in the short term, but will be awful for the Currie Cup in the longterm.
That can’t be good for SA rugby.
And the reason why SANZAR did not decide which team would go into the Aussie conference at the previous meeting, was that the ARU completely won every other issue and as a sop to Saru allowed them to go back to their constituency and claim that they still had a chance at the extra team.
Saru did not want: The conference system, the later start date, the later finish, just to name a few.
O’Neill completely cleaned their clocks at the negotians.
October 22nd 2009 @ 10:06am
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
When the decision to expand was made SANZAR agreed to a new structure.
Part of that was agreeing to geographically based conferences, and the other was a guaranteed finals spot to the winner of each conference.
The second point was pushed by South Africa. Analysis of top 4 finishers by country over the history of super 12/14 shows you why they pushed for this. SA have missed out on finals the most. In return for this they agreed to geographic conferences that were wanted by OZ and NZ so that more derbies could be played as they got the biggest crowds.
So this is how we got to this point. Just thought it was worth remembering.
October 22nd 2009 @ 10:24am
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Reds fan,
this is one point I agree with you whole heartedly on.
The conference systems were designed so that South Africa would be guaranteed a finals spot and therefore increase their chances of winning a title. Because as is in the current format they have been woefully inadequate.
I’m not convinced on the conference systems as it is glaringly obvious that their will be a weak conference a strong conference and one inbetween.
I am not a fan of the conference system at all it only favours South Africa.
Then again all the SANZAR decisions seem to favour SA look at the new Tri-Nations format that too also favours SA with them being able to play all their home games first. Not once will they have to contend with players having extended breaks inbetween games. Their away legs will also be finished before NZ and Australia finish the series. However with the inclusion of Argentina this format will not be around long.
October 22nd 2009 @ 3:13pm
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Hermin.
I just read this and can now see why you think we want to join your ANZC. I think most Roarers, and me included, dont want this at all, we want our own domestic comp (except those that say we dont need anything more and that’s fine too). John O is complete knob 90% of the time.
This is Wayne Smith in the Australian Newspaper.
“Earlier this year, ARU chief executive John O’Neill indicated a modified version of the ARC might be considered if the new SANZAR broadcast deal poured sufficient money into the ARU coffers.
Indeed, he foreshadowed the possibility of a trans-Tasman competition that might take the place of New Zealand’s financially-troubled NPC — the Air New Zealand Cup, to give it its official title.
The existing 14-team NPC is teetering on the brink of collapse and almost certainly will be trimmed back in size in 2011, possibly to 10 teams. But where all previous attempts to tap into the domestic New Zealand competition have come to nothing, this time it is in the NZRU’s interest to seriously consider an Australian involvement.”
October 22nd 2009 @ 3:21pm
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
Hardly on the brink of collapse but it is was struggling financially I think you will find this years figures markedly different.
What I have been saying all along is Australian rugby needs to pull its head out of the clouds and create a competition for Australians the Super format is not the place to develop players. What I and many others have been saying to you all along is that your club competition is no different to the club comp here in NZ. Australia is missing that vital link between club and state/super rugby.
As is the standard of Australian rugby has slipped considerably since the last expansion, something that I’m not sure you realise or are choosing simply to ignore.
ARU have a bigger slice of the pie yet are doing worse than ever go figure????
October 22nd 2009 @ 3:26pm
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
Oh i realise it alright. But as I posted to you elsewhere… we talk “rugby” SANZAR talk “money”. We will never make sense of their decisions.
I can’t argue the rugby side of the decision because it doesnt make sense when the governing body is talking money. It makes our arguments irrelevant. I hope that makes some sense.
October 23rd 2009 @ 1:56pm
Hermin said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
So reds fan they argued money last time and look whats happened.
Thats right not much to look at because nothings happened the situation has got worse, so where’s all that moolah going?
If I was an Australian rugby fan I would be demanding answers!
I see some people obviously don’t learn from their mistakes.
October 22nd 2009 @ 11:55am
ohtani's jacket said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Arbitration? Anything that calls O’Neill out on his wild bluffs and false bravado is amusing to me. I hope the South Africans milk this until the eleventh hour. Surely, O’Neill will try to play the victim in all this. Perhaps it will lure the supporters back in a fit of indignation. Until Melbourne take the field and everyone realises what a crap decision it was.
October 22nd 2009 @ 12:03pm
LeftArmSpinner said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
OJ, it is not a panecea for all things Wallabies and ARU, but it is an important building block. the next step is to get more kids into rugby and through the system at junior level.
October 22nd 2009 @ 12:11pm
ohtani's jacket said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
What does that have to do with the other two thirds of SANZAR? New Zealand had a 5000 player increase this year. Maybe you wanna take our kids living in Melbourne?
October 22nd 2009 @ 12:18pm
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
That’s ok isn’t it?