To say that they have to have a ‘black’ side to satisfy the ANC is such a lie. They could actually pick these talented players in the existing sides. The Cheetahs from Bloemfontein and the Lions from Johannsberg must be the two weakest sides that have ever existed in the Super 14. When the Lions lost a match the Afrikaans coach famously turned on the only two coloured players in his side – Earl Rose and the prop – and blamed then for the loss.

It’s fantastic to see the South African 7s side coached by Paul Treu win the IRB sevens series. The speed, skill and power of that team are a joy to watch. That they are predominately black and coloured is a tribute to the transformation of South African rugby.

They don’t need their own team in the Super 15 to demonstrate their worth.

having 5 teams languishing around playing mediocore rugby won’t generate new supporters or encourage existing ones to continue watching

But the problem is that most of those players (the better ones anyway) went because they were offered more money than the big SA unions could afford … so why would they go play for the SK team for less? They might get some of the lesser players back and they might get some benchwarmers … but that way you’ll only ever be, at best, a middle of the log team which, to me, defeats the object of playing. If you want to be in the Super Rugby arena, in my totally irrelevant opinion, you should be able to prove you have some decent plan (not just a wishful ambition) that shows you can be competitive with the top side in say three to five years. I also, don’t believe the Melbourne side can do that without poaching either. They either need to poach the Islands, the N-Zealanders or the SA teams or junior (which is what it seems the ARU have targetted rather than developing their own nursery and encouraging Australian school to switch to Union but that’s a whole other topic).

My honest opinion is that, should either of these teams get the 15th slot, then, without poaching from other teams, they’re both going to be the whipping boys for quite a while. Admittedly, the SK do have great feeder teams/schools/varsities that can prop them up in the future but the truth is it’s not a very cash-flush area so their chances of holding onto the best of those players is very slim. Melbourne, on the other hand, don’t have as much chances of quality youngsters coming through there systems which’ll mean that they’ll be forced to poach other teams/nations. I’m sure if they’re allowed to field a half NZ players team then they’ll get more spectators from the Nea Zealand ex-pats but is that really building a support base? Are there a whole bunch of Melbourne schools just waiting to switch over to playing rugby union now just because they’ve got a Super 15 team? I assume the answer to that is no.

Also, if it’s going to take a couple of years for them to be competitive, will the crowds still support them during this building phase when they might be getting whipped week in and out. Or will the Melbourne area get tired of that and rather decide to stop watching it live or on the TV? In which case News Corp might not be very happy Super Rugby parents. From what I gather the ARU is really trying very hard to make sure this new franchise doesn’t weaken the others which means, unlike the Force, they really do need to start from scratch which means this is a very real possibility.

I think also, in terms of TV viewership, most Saffers and Aussies won’t watch the ZA derbies, most Saffers and NZealanders won’t watch the Aussie derbies and most Aussies and NZealanders won’t watch the SA derbies. Which’ll mean the competition will be in a type of “sleep” mode until the finals. It also means the overall viewership might come down because less people will be watching the games. At the moment Saffers watch all the SA games and support all the SA teams playing the other side. Similiarly, are Aussies and NZ supporters going to stay up late at night/early morning to watch SA teams slug it out? Probably most of them won’t. I think what will happen therefore is most people will only watch the game that affect their team and, overall, less viewers will wind up watching the whole product that what we have now.

As you might have guessed, I’m not in favour of this “conferences” thing and not in favour of any expansion.

Actually, since I’m going on here. Here’s another option, why don’t they increase the number of teams in each conference and let SA play the Currie Cup as their conference, let NZ play the NPC as their conference and then let the ARU make a comp for theirs. Then everyone’s happy. ARU get their “next tier” with extra teams since we can maybe give each conference 8 sides. SA and NZ get to keep their showpiece tournaments and play them with their best players (unlike now when the Boks and All Blacks don’t play mostly). And, on top of that, NZ and SA can keep all their smaller teams happy because they can, during the Super Rugby finals phase, play promotion games which allowed their next “tier” teams a chance to get into the Super Rugby league.

But that’s just a plan that makes sense to me and, from what I can see, deals with nearly all the differences and political problems that the thre countries have. It allows the NZ rugby guys to appease and keep their smallers teams (which is their big rugby political issue). It allows SA to put the Kings in (which is their big “political” political issue) and, like NZ, keeps the smaller teams happy since they will forever have the chance to get into Super Rugby should they one day have the ambition and finances (very unlikely but at least they can have “the dream”).

relatives of the player who actually has the ball in hand at that particular moment !

I tend to agree with this.

http://www.keo.co.za/2009/10/22/why-the-kings-must-rule/

The whole point of having more provinces/super teams is provide more opportunities for more quality players.

There is a combined pull/push effect here. You have to provide the opportunities, but also be sure you have the talent coming through.

Rugby union is now a professional game. Unless we provide more opportunities for professional players, we won’t be able to compete in the market place.

How often Aussie super teams win the S14 or whatever is largely irrelevant. Ironically, if Australin rugby is doing its job properly, & the talent is evenly spread among the 5 provinces, we mightn’t win the super tournament that often!

Providing plenty of quality players for the Wallabies, & plenty of competition for each position is the fundamental role of a domestic national comp ( & teams).

Australia does NOT have the Union player depth.

It is a smoke screen that suggest it does.

We are Robbing Peter to pay Paul to keep the illusion alive.

So the Force are now competitive, o.k but they still rely soley on Qld and NSW in a nursery sense.

Qld and NSW but not the ACT sadly, because they are no longer a formidable nursery, will continue to be decimated by WA, the ACT and now Vic.

This is not rocket science.

I am not suprised about that result. St Eddies have for years been under increasing scrutiny re their Union centricity. Parents and the community in general have been on a witch hunt to cut this tall poppy down.

SEC are no longer a national power house as a result albeit they are still big fish in a little pond Union wise. The ACT Schools results are testament to this shift with NO representation in this years Aust Schools side to tour Eire and the u.K which is unprecedented for this famous Union nursery.

The new College regime has been slowly moving the focus away from ‘thugby’ which has been a very healthy cultural evolution which should result in the school developing into a very strong Australian Footy school within the next five to ten years I believe.

it’s a god job that conference winners are guaranteed a final’s spot so at least there’ll be 1 week of finals footy for Aussie supporters

There was the same argument when the Force started, and look at them now, a couple of years later.”

You’re right – that about sums it up neatly.

There was the same argument when the Force started, and look at them now, a couple of years later.

The fact is that with another team, the bench players from other teams are lured in for the chance to start, and squad players become bench players. This means that more players get exposed to this level of rugby. The players are there – in club-land, Junior Academies etc – and with a couple of years’ S15 experience, they will be solid Super rugby players.

Look at the guys, not even including those overseas, who don’t always get a great go with their team for whatever reason. They already form a very sold team

1 Sekope Kepu/Nic Henderson
2 Damien Fitzpatrick
3 Dan Palmer/Matt Dunning
4 Chris Thomson
5 Dave Dennis
6 McCalman/Timani
7 Beau Robinson/Lei Tomiki
8 Scott Fava (make it all 5 teams Scottie!)
9 Josh Holmes/Phibbs
10 Daniel Halangahu – assuming Barnes and Beale play 10-12 or Lealiifano
11 Nick Edwards
12 Tatupu/Pelesasa/Gordon no.12 – can never remember his name
13 Digby Ioane (because he’s a local boy)
14 Ratu Nasiganyavi
15 Maybe Lachie Turner so he can play 15.

SA did not start good in the S12 and S14 but they are getting better and better each year as the franchises come to grips with professionalism.

I still don’t believe the SK should get it.

That is incredibly funny, mate.

Anyway we agree to disagree or do we? Sa certainly dont deserve a new team and perhaps AUS dont either but the fact remains that a new team from all reports is a certainty so perhaps its best to not bother arguing about things we cant change.

By the way I dont appreciate the arrogant and condescending tone of your posts. I have merely pointed out some stats (which are accurate but open to interpretation) for you and provided an argument as to why derbies are an excellent option for the future (IMO) for all 3 countries.

Like I said read the threads properly and you might actually learn something. Don’t jump in halfway through when clearly you don’t have a clue.

If you did read some posts Justin you will see I am clearly not in favour of South Africa either and if I was forced to pick I would go with Australia due to SAs poor results throughout the super competition.
So run along and come back when you have something to add instead of being a provocative juvenile.

Would you prefer the S14 to dissolve? Its clear from the crowds in NZ the public is tired of S14 in its current state and the passion in the current NPC would suggest that more derbies will give the game a boost not only in NZ but SA and AUS as well.

But stuff it lets screw the whole thing just so AUS dont get what they want because the game is struggling there….

Bravo

There is no over or under.

Explain to me how New Zealand can consistantly deliver the results yet neither SA or Aus can?
Because once you can answer that then you will get to the basis of what all this is about

P.s I nor any other Kiwi on this thread said that a NZ team should be granted so we’ll get that clear straight away!

Personally, I still prefer the old Super 12 format to be honest but that’s just my opinion and, obviously, it’s not going to count for anything.

Also, with regards to News Corp worrying about the money situation. I think they might have dropped the ball a bit here. At the moment more than 50% of the income the News Corp derives from Super Rugby is bought in by SA TV rights and advertisers. Now, if we’re going to have more local derbies then they may wind up having less of those viewers and advertisers available for the Australian and NZ derbies. Of course this is countered by hopefully more Australian and New Zealand viewing numbers and advertisers, but, if that doesn’t happen, then News Corp might find that they might have misjudged this thing. Hopefully not because the more money that comes in the better for all three nations involved. Personally though, I’m not sure we’re going to get any more viewers than we currently get from Australia or NZ. That said, I’m not sure we’ll get anymore from SA by having the 15th team based there. I think we’ve pretty much got viewer saturation as it is in all three countries.

My last little comment here is, why is the Super 14 in Australia sponsored by what is originally, and still mainly, a South African company called Investec? Might it not be that the company is aware that their name is splashed over the rugby pitch to be viewed by South Africans who make a large number of their clients? Also, it’s cheaper for them to sponsor the Australian rights than it is to afford the SA rights and yet still get almost the same exposure. Will they still be interested if there are more local derbies and less SA viewers interested in watching those? I know that SANZAR is trying to get a global sponsor which, if it happens, will sort out this point, but, if they don’t, the ARU might have to settle for a lesser paying title sponsor. Just a small possibility I thought might be interesting to put down here.

ja like how kearns bagged the ref cause he pinged the wallabies for obstruction and phil said the wallabies did nothing wrong and then he bought an expert on the show and phil say that really he was wrong

iam tired of biased one eyed commentators

There is most certainly one country who cannot afford an extra team, on that point you are certainly right

Show me why SA needs 6! One more than NZ….