Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018?
Roar Guru By Bay35Pablo, 2 Feb 2012 Bay35Pablo is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Canada rugby, japan rugby, Rugby Union, SARU, Southern Kings, Super Rugby, US Rugby
173 Have your say
Bret Harris’s article in The Australian about the SARU supposedly pushing for the Southern Kings to be included in the Super Rugby comp made me pause and think.
The first thought was how, if true, it reinforces the idea of the South African Rugby Union being to be a law unto itself.
However well intentioned – the aim being to get black players into rugby – the Kings are a pet project of the SARU. Expecting the other SANZAR partners to change so soon into a five-year broadcast deal to cater for it is bull headed.
It shouldn’t happen, especially when there is a need to bring the Argentines into Super Rugby now. That need is far more pressing than having a sixth SARU side, when two of their five of their current sides are always weak.
Harris also wrote about how the Australian and New Zealand conferences could add a Japanese and a US side respectively to become a Super 18 in 2018.
18 teams, with a very distant one in each of the ANZ conferences, just doesn’t make sense. Each ANZ team would have to travel a long way for just one game, where currently they head to South Africa for a two-game tour, getting their away games for that conference done in one hit.
As such, it would make more sense for South Africa to add the Kings and say Buenos Aires, and the ANZ conferences to each add two sides. Australia’s conference could involve two Japanese sides, building Japan’s depth and creating a Japanese derby, in a competition in which derbies are often the best thing.
Alternatively, it could be a Japanese and Hong Kong side, which would be made up of expatriates for the most part, but would get into the Asian market.
For New Zealand, add two West Coast US sides (say San Franciso and LA, or one Californian side along with Seattle or Portland) or a US side and Vancouver (to help out the Canucks).
Of course, we could just add a Pacific conference with all the above sides for a Super 20, but that wouldn’t allow the Kings in. And we know it’s all about keeping our South African cousins happy.
Yes, this topic has been done to death, but it’s still nice to brainstorm. After all, we all know John O’Neill is monitoring these forums and stealing all his best ideas from us.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Canada rugby, japan rugby, Rugby Union, SARU, Southern Kings, Super Rugby, US Rugby
February 2nd 2012 @ 6:38am
Emric said | February 2nd 2012 @ 6:38am | Report comment
3 more teams is a good idea – Taranaki Stealers for NZ, Kings for SA, and I have no idea where in Aus could support another team perhaps Tasmania? reduce the cross over games and increase conference games to compenstate each team should only have 2 cross over games in my opinion anyway until the finals.
Lets have a New Zealand, Australia and SA Conference champions before the top 6 teams go into the play offs
February 2nd 2012 @ 7:18am
sheek said | February 2nd 2012 @ 7:18am | Report comment
Emric,
I hope you’re not a Kiwi, because they would kill you for coming up with an obviously hybrid suggestion, combining the Taranaki Ambers with the Counties Steelers. And with Waikato in between???
And Tasmania for the 6th Aussie franchise??? C’mon, they are light years away from that reality. If you’re serious, think West Sydney. Or at least a second NSW-based team.
February 2nd 2012 @ 7:31am
Emric said | February 2nd 2012 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Sheek.
No matter what team you put in Australia its not going to be strong, and the Australian rugby union is going to have to fully fund the project for the next 20 years. If this is the case then it could be put almost anywhere so why not take a few risks?
As for being a kiwi I’m from Wellington born and bred. The Steelers was a slip up since I posted that on my way to work on a bus at 6AM in the morning. My point Taranaki should have its own super team, and the hurricanes can become a Wellington Provence
February 2nd 2012 @ 7:59am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 7:59am | Report comment
‘No matter what team you put in Australia its not going to be strong’ Read my answer below to this point.
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:54am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:54am | Report comment
What happens to Manawatu in all of this Emric who do they go to?
Wellington Province on its on can not sustain a super rugby team that was clearly evident in the last two seasons of ITM cup
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:02am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Rugbug it could sustain a team if the team made a decent impression in any way. However big your audience if your team is absurd, as for example the Waratahs, then no one will turn up to watch.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:32am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:32am | Report comment
KPM do you actually know anything about NZ rugby?
Wellington had a very poor season by their lofty standards last year narrowly missing out on relegation to the championship, and people simply have not been turning up to their games for the last few seasons.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:36am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Rugbug the point which you failed to follow is that if a franchise is good and well run it will attract crowds, whereas if it is badly run it will not. This does not mean an area is incapable of supporting that franchise, it just means the franchise needs to be well run.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:42am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:42am | Report comment
KPM the point which you fail to understand is you can not just enter teams for the sake of money are you for real?
The team must be competitive and worthy of local support. There is no use having a top class team and expertly run business if no one wants to buy your product.
its pointless debating with you as you are really on another planet when it comes down to basic business principles which are paramount in running a professionals sport team.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:46am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Ok Rugbug consider the following. Auckland has a population three times that of any other New Zealand city, but only one team instead of three. In fact it’s population is 7 times that of Otago, which supports the Highlanders.
So another team in south Auckland would surely have enough supporters.
Now for players. To begin with, New Zealand produces more top rugby players than any country in the world, so filling a 6th team should be easy.
However, South Auckland happens to be the one area where there are players who in New Zealand who are not currently a part of rugby, because it is the heart of league. So a South Auckland franchise could take all this young league talent and actually add further to the New Zealand player pool.
So there would both be a market for such a team and the players to fill it, AND the only possibility left in New Zealand to expand the game.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:08am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
There is nothing to consider you are talking complete and utter nonsense you have no clue about NZ rugby and your ideas are all based on the assumption of people wanting to convert from League and popularity of League and AFL taking a hit and people turning to rugby in droves. it simply will not happen, currently all three countries are struggling to field 5 competitive teams as it is and you think adding more will make the competition more appealing?
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:19am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:19am | Report comment
I could give you some arguments, but you’re not open to considering ideas other than your own so they would be wasted.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:32am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:32am | Report comment
No KPM it is you who is not open to ideas and quite frankly your on another planet.
The competiton is barely sustainable as it is yet you think magicking up teams and plonking them around certain parts of the countries and various cities that the money is going to appear out of thin air the crowds will flock in huge numbers that there will be a huge exodus of league stars to rugby and top quality foreign based players will be lining up to play for these teams is fantasy at best.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:37am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:37am | Report comment
If you pay a Jarod Saffy or Cooper Vuna or Rocky Elsom or Berrick Barnes or in England Chris Ashton/Joel Tomkins/Iain Thornley/Kyle Eastmond, then they will come to play for your team. Why wouldn’t they?
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:47am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:47am | Report comment
case in point
February 2nd 2012 @ 7:08pm
Emric said | February 2nd 2012 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
Rugbug.
the NZRU via sponsorship and tv rights earns about 100 million dollars a year – this runs the ITM-Cup, Super Rugby and International games.
What KPM is suggesting (if I’m reading him right) is that Super Rugby and the ITM-cup should be almost the same thing by widing the competition to include more NZ, SA Provence’s and by forcing Australia to add more teams we will end up with less cross competition games and more local competition games the Curry Cup, ITM Cup and Ranfurly Shield can be incorporated into this structure allowing for both conference champions as well as super-rugby champions.
February 3rd 2012 @ 10:33am
Rugbug said | February 3rd 2012 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Emric and if you pay any attention to what Kiwis / Saffas and the respective unions NZRU / SARU are saying we want to keep our ITM and CC cups completely separate we do not want to use it (SR) as psuedo domestic competition like he is suggesting not to mention his absurd reasonings for how and where teams should be based.
End of story Kiwis and South Africans do not want what he is suggesting.
February 6th 2012 @ 5:28pm
Emric said | February 6th 2012 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
Rugbug New Zealanders want the ITM cup to be the no.1 competition in New Zealand we want Dan Carter to be playing in black and red of cant.
Unfortunately our premier cimpetition has been regulated by the NZRU to nothing but a second rate development competition, none of the super stars of the game play in it anymore, the ranfurly shield once the pride of New Zealand rugby is nothing more then a joke now
crowds of only a few hundred showing up to shield games which used to sell out grounds.
The reality is our national competition is dying. We must move before it dies completely.
February 9th 2012 @ 7:21pm
Rugbug said | February 9th 2012 @ 7:21pm | Report comment
Oh Emric are you really a Kiwi?
Because your post is so far from the truth it is farcical at best.
Last time I checked the Ranfurly sheild was still attracting thousands of supporters.
Please stop trying to fill this forum with outright lies
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:22am
sheek said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Emric,
Just on the point of the location of NZ’s 6th franchise, there are a number of options.
Taranaki of course, is one, with its rich farming & coastal attractions. But also Hawke’s bay & bay of Plenty.
If you take a leaf out of NZ cricket Northern Districts I believe, covers Taranaki, Waikato & Counties. So Taranaki would come under Waikato Chiefs.
Central Districts takes in Manawatu (I think?), Hawke’s Bay & Bay of Plenty. Your thoughts?
As for a 6th Aussie team, yes it will be weak compared to NZ & SA. But this is Australian rugby’s problem – it continues to think too ‘small’. The game will only grow through aggressive recruitment.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:33am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Sheek see below individual districts that make up Central Districts
Hawke’s Bay, Horowhenua-Kapiti, Manawatu, Marlborough, Nelson, Taranaki, Wairarapa and Wanganui.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:46am
sheek said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Rugbug,
Thanks for that info.
Would it be unfair to suggest NZ rugby mostly adopt the NZ cricket model when the time comes for a 6th franchise…..?
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:04am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
It wouldn’t work really as their are already uncomfortable rivalries within.
Nelson Marlborough are at the top of the South Island and currently come under the Crusaders and its unlikely they will want to cut themselves loose from the most successful franchise in the competition.
Horowhenua is really a satelitte suburb of the Wellington Province if you ask me Paraparaumu is technically on the Kapiti coast but most people would also refer to it as part of Wellington as it is ony a 40 minute drive into the CBD on a good day. Wairarapa again I believe would align themselves with the Wellington region as again many travel from there into Wellington for work sporting competitons already.
Taranaki, Hawkes Bay and Wanganui possibly the Manawatu could amalgamate to make a team but if it were to go ahead I think Manawatu would be annexed to Wellington to give it two Tier one provinces in its catchment area and two for the Naki and Magpies. Going back it was Taranaki that had the sound bid with local support and a very wealthy backer, Hawkes Bay whilst having a larger population fell over at the financial hurdle. It was only due to the NZRU refusing to put forward a team that the Naki bid was not subjected, it ticked all the required boxes except it wasn’t Australian.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:35am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Sheek it’s easy looked at this way: BOP 275,000, Manawatu 222,000, Hawke’s Bay 157,000, Taranaki 94,000!!!
However, at 1.5 million with one team, Auckland could add two more and still have a larger number, 500,000, per team. What’s more a South Auckland team unlike all the other possibilities wouldn’t have to take players from the other franchises catchment areas, it would take them from….guess where….rugby league! Thereby conquering the final frontier for New Zealand rugby.
As for Australia, on another thread recently I mused that two or three teams could be formed from league converts with strong rugby backgrounds such as Jared Waerea-Hargeaves, Jarod Saffy, Cooper Cronk, Jamal Idriss, Jordan Rapana (Rocky Elsoms and Berrick Barneses must abound), not even considering European players.
So an Australian team would only be weak if based on existing Australia rugby union players, but why should it be? (the reason of course is that in the first place with so few teams it was necessary for every player to be local so that players got enough exposure. Now that there are more teams, this reason no longer exists, and there’s no reason every player should be Australian, especially when it gets in the way of new franchises and expansion).
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:50am
sheek said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:50am | Report comment
KPM,
On the other hand, isn’t Napier (capital of Hawke’s Bay) among the top 6-7 most populous cities in NZ?
I must admit I haven’t looked at recent figures, & my memory could be playing tricks on me.
However, Napier appears strong in the stadia department & also with a rich horse race (Kelp Stakes).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying give a spot to HB because of a rich horse race, but Napier seems to score highly across a number of factors, not just the population size of the region.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:01am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
That’s true Sheek, but it is only 122,000 to Tauranga’s population, which is 116,000. The difference however is that the region surrounding Hawke’s Bay is only 35,000 more than Napier, whereas the region surrounding Tauranga is a whopping 116,000 more, in total 157,000 to 277,000.
However, both of these are far behind Auckland’s 1.5 million. South Auckland and North Harbour teams would each have 500,000 to play with, and would turn Auckland into a hotbed of local rugby rivalries, while simultaneously taking over from league, the majority of who’s New Zealand born players come from South Auckland.
Between you and me as others here would be hostile to such an idea, in terms of crowds alone, New Zealand in the very end could hold 10-12 teams (one day 14). BOP and the two Auckland teams present no risks in terms of crowds with their large populations, as do not Western Sydney, Adelaide, Gold Coast, and countless locations in South Africa. The problem is, having set up Super rugby as it is, it’s hard to change it to make the most of its potential.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:46am
mania said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:46am | Report comment
your confused. NZ produce quality not a quantity players. its not a production line where u just churn out player after player. its takes years of development and nurturing to bring out a good rugby player and the major deciding factor is the individuals commitment.
this is where your southAuckland team falls apart. southAuckland has a whole bunch of big a55, strong, fast pacific islanders but they’re mainly league players/supporters. its been proven over and over that the majority of league players cannot compete in rugby (mattRogers, wendellSailor, tamanaTahu, chrisWalker etc etc).
u dont just spend a year with an athelete and turn them into a rugby player. there’s the philisophy of rugby to understand before u even get down to the tactics and strategy which is completely different to league.
and where’s the money going to come from? in sthAuckalnd if they arent winning they wont stand a chance of converting fans over from league. this franchise would be doomed from the get go
February 2nd 2012 @ 11:01am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 11:01am | Report comment
mania I’m not talking about getting the current league players from South Auckland and converting them to union, I’m talking about taking over the FUTURE league players from South Auckland BEFORE they even become league players. There will easily be a team of them down there.
At the moment New Zealand does have more than five teams of top players, and the excess from the other franchises could form a powerful unit in South Auckland.
February 2nd 2012 @ 12:04pm
mania said | February 2nd 2012 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
but that takes years of development. so say u start with a 100 young potential players, of that 100 probably only 20 have the right physicality and mentality to be a top sports people. so then u have these 20 players and of those half would drop out (or fail) etc etc. until u get 1-2 world quality players and having spent all that development money on 100 of them
having a southAuckland team would take a lot of time and resources. force and rebels arent going to be any good until they have a decent player base and that imho will at least 10 years.
February 2nd 2012 @ 12:35pm
nzmate said | February 2nd 2012 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Hi kpm, the idea of south auckland being a ‘final frontier’ of NZ rugby is incorrect. Yes rugby league has a strong following in south auckland but it still trails RU on the basis of number of clubs and players. I live in counties manukau and have played rugby there for most of my life and the area extends to the edge of the waikato district encapsulating a number of rural communities and satellite towns which have no league team at all. That said there are areas i.e. mangere and possibly otara where league would have an edge. If the number of nz teams were to expand in NZ i think it would have to be either Taranaki based on the level of financial backing and stadium size (as opposed to hawkes bay) or a South Auckland team based out of mt smart stadium. This has a number of positives and negatives. It would provide an opportunity to tap into the huge amount of rugby talent (of both codes) in south auckland and could even be marketed as a pacifica team as per the model proposed by Eric Watson – warriors owner – several years ago. This would perhaps help kill two birds with one stone, it would give pacific rugby a professional outlet while providing more avenues for talented young rugby kids who are increasingly being targeted by league clubs from school (eg Roger Tuivasa-shek, Otahuhu College – NZ Schoolboys- now roosters Braxton Stanley from Auckland Grammer, Ngataua Hukatai from Kings College and NZ School Boys, Ngani Lumape , Palmerston Boys High, NZ School Boys (now warriors), to name just a few from 2011 comp to move on. One of the reasons for swapping codes is often cited as the lack of opportunities or pathways from college rugby into a professional setup-or environment. A new team may help achieve this. I imagine the Blues franchise may not be too impressed but you throw up interesting possibilities around cross town darby matches etc. Whether there is a market or not im not sure but if – and thats a big if – expansion were to occur in NZ I could not see it occurring outside these two areas, and even then that would be discounting an entirely different model – i.e. a move to a Heineken cup style comp with npc teams to the fore.
February 2nd 2012 @ 2:32pm
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
nzmate firstly thanks for an excellent and well-informed response. As said elsewhere in the responses to this article, Super rugby has had a one town, one team model which works fine for smaller cities or those without a strong rugby background, but when it comes to Auckland and Sydney creates real problems for player and market development. I think that each of these could be split in three, bringing into existence strong local rivalries that are not there now.
Then, in terms of league players, I would imagine New Zealand each year has enough good league players to fill one Super team, at most two. These players could be got through two more Auckland teams, and with Counties Manukau and North Harbour there would be three existing identities within the city.
It’s in fact the only area in the country where rugby could expand in terms of players.
In terms of fans, although Taranaki is often touted as a good expansion site, the population of the area is only 109,000, which neither leaves room for growth nor security of crowds. After the two theoretical Auckland teams, counting on a population of almost 500,000 each, BOP is next in population with 277,000: these numbers I hope mean that some crowds will come, come what may. The problem with areas under 200,000 is that if things go badly, there are few people not to turn up.
As you say a South Auckland team would provide the direct avenues that league is currently offering (I think that a North Harbour team would send its tentacles down there too).
League players are the last potential source of talent left within New Zealand for rugby to conquer, and with the likes of SBW, Benji Marshall, Shaun Johnson and Locke in the same generation, there is obviously a worthwhile amount of talent to acquire, that would add considerably to the game and the national team.
February 2nd 2012 @ 3:51pm
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Your population base is completely flawed Taranaki was the only team in NZ who could and did put together a solid case for inclusion as the 15th team. The only reason they didn’t was because the NZRU refused to put forward a bid simply to appease the ARU and even up the number of teams from each country.
Taranaki did not drop their bid as Bay has said further down the NZRU simply refused to put it forward for no other reason than that the could.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:38am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
P.s Taranaki players are now drifting more towards the Chiefs due to the snubbery often afforded them by the Hurricanes selectors, this is a little odd considering Colin Cooper (ex canes coach of some years)is a staunch Taranaki man and current Taranaki coach.
The rival Between The Naki and the Mooloos is huge and a traditional farmyard stoush, which is why the NPC is so important as it maintains those rivalries.
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:19am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Before Tasmania there might perhaps be Sydney 2, Sydney 3, Adelaide, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Sunshine Coast, Central Coast, Illawara, Northern Queensland, Brisbane 2.
So that means there would need to be 10 more teams before getting to Tasmania, or even if it were thought so important as to leapfrog some of the latter, then 5 more teams would still go first.
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:53am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Taranaki Stealers were did you get that name from?
The Naki as the are more commonly referred to are also known as Ferdis boys, the Stealers label you have given them infers they are part of Counties Manukau who are known as the Steelers.
I’ve got amber and black running through my veins and i can guarantee you now that name would not be used nor would the idea of combining Counties and Taranaki.
Any talk of a merger was and will be with Hawkes Bay therefore taking the top half of the Hurricanes catchment area.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:16am
Emric said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:16am | Report comment
as previously stated – I was half asleep when I posted this morning.
February 2nd 2012 @ 6:44am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 6:44am | Report comment
The flaw in Harris’ argument is the idea that Australia doesn’t have enough players for another team: this is true, if the players are AUSTRALIAN UNION players! But why do they have to be? If there’s a market for another team why not base it around foreign players and NRL converts?
Of course the solution to this whole issue is simple:
1) Another team is SA, New Zealand AND Australia next year, that is the Kings, Western Sydney/Adelaide, and South Auckland. In 2013.
2) Three teams in Buenos Aires, L.A., Tokyo/Vancouver (if the JZRU refuse a Super team), one team in each conference. In 2014.
Isn’t that simple and obvious?
February 2nd 2012 @ 7:18pm
Krash said | February 2nd 2012 @ 7:18pm | Report comment
KPM, its obvious, but it is by no means logistically simple…
February 2nd 2012 @ 6:53am
Football United said | February 2nd 2012 @ 6:53am | Report comment
Argentina and Japan building up there own competitions >>>>>> even bothering with super rugby.
February 2nd 2012 @ 7:06am
Emric said | February 2nd 2012 @ 7:06am | Report comment
Argentina wants in on the competition they have already said so, and SANZAR in principle is in favour of the idea. Argentina will get its own super teams soon enough.
South Auckland is not a good place for another rugby team we need to start seriously involving the provences which is the true power base of New Zealand rugby
February 2nd 2012 @ 7:26am
sheek said | February 2nd 2012 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Bay,
Good to hear from you! However, I totally disagree that super rugby can be all things to all peoples.
Okay, the Asian Cup (footbal/soccer) comprises teams from the middle east right across to Australia. But this comp is played in pools, & no single team is expected to play more than 7 matches max.
We’re talking about expanding a super rugby comp to 21 teams from South Africa right around to Argentina (3/4 quarters or more of the earth’s southern hemisphere circumference, then head north across the equator & embrace Japan on one side of the North Pacific, & USA & Canada on the other side of the North Pacific).
As much as I want to see rugby union grow, this is sheer madness. And thought up by people who themselves don’t have to do all this traveling & playing, but merely switch dials on the TV remote from the comfort of their living rooms!!!
February 2nd 2012 @ 7:59am
Darwin Stubby said | February 2nd 2012 @ 7:59am | Report comment
And also – what everyone continues to gloss over or ignore in these stupid expansion discussions – the quality will drop drastically and no matter what people
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:08am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Sheek the question here is one of money really. There are a whole 5 markets who could join Super rugby through buying up their national team and putting a team based on it there: Argentina, U.S.A., Japan, Canada, Russia (it’s too cold in Russia in winter to play in the northern hemisphere domestic or international competitions). Obviously this would be quite expensive, but it looks like the first two or three of those will have a team sooner rather than later. All indications point to a Buenos Aires team in 2014, while everyone seems to want to go to the U.S. and Japan for the money. Whether this is affordable is one question, but there is some advantage to it in the following sense. I quote myself from elsewhere:
‘The southern hemisphere should be far more active in trying to take the reigns of the game (so as to influence it more).
The northern hemisphere is too uninterested to expand the game, so SANZAR should recognise that there are large markets it can claim for itself, firstly through Super rugby and then through the Rugby Championship. With these onside, its influence will be greater. The northern hemisphere won’t integrate teams from these countries in their domestic leagues, and they think the Six nations is full. Super rugby is already international however, and there are more spaces in the Rugby Championship for new teams.’
What SANZAR is really hoping is that just one of these markets takes off, and that millions of TV dollars pour in as a result.
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:13am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:13am | Report comment
DS I can’t see any reason why the quality should drop at least in terms of existing teams: if the starting 22 of each existing team is untouched (rather like the NZ strategy of allowing teams to protect 24 of their players), then there’s no reason why they should be any weaker.
Besides, the supposed ‘weak’ teams in existence now need not be there: look at the outrageous player hoarding in SA for example whereby the Bulls are allowed to hog half the talent in the country, when if they were forec to give just a few players outside their starting 22 to the Lions, the latter franchise would instantly transform in compeitiveness.
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:43am
Darwin Stubbie said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:43am | Report comment
I’m beyond caring about rehashing this ongoing argument – the flaws are there for all to see … And now you’ve introduced another – the assumption of no injuries …
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:47am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Let’s say the Bulls have 24 players, and give up 6 to the Lions. In the larger Bulls squad, 30-40, there will be plenty of excellent players, many of them young.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:44am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
I’m with you on this DS he clearly does not have a clue re NZ rugby and his solutions to creating teams in OZ are on assumptions league players would convert and foreigners will jump at the chance to bolster fledgling Australian franchises its all up in the clouds wishful thinking on his part.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:50am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:50am | Report comment
And when it happens, I’ll remember to point it out to you.
February 2nd 2012 @ 2:19pm
Emric said | February 2nd 2012 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Rugbug – Considering that the USA actively considered the idea to send some of their top players to Europe to join in the European competitions – it could work. I’m sure there are some American, Canadian, even Russians and Georgians who would jump at the chance to play professional rugby if the opportunity arrived.
February 2nd 2012 @ 4:03pm
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Lets talk about expansion when they get it right with the 15 teams that are already in the competiton.
February 2nd 2012 @ 11:26am
Football United said | February 2nd 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
‘the northern hemisphere is too uninterested to expand the game’. that definitely must be why they are allowing club and rep teams from spain, romania and soon russia into their european club competitions while SANZAAR refuses to allow top tier test nations like the Pacific Islands to even consider the possibility of entering their competitions.
February 2nd 2012 @ 7:28pm
Krash said | February 2nd 2012 @ 7:28pm | Report comment
Sheek, I could not agree more. As good as the endeavour to expand ruby union is, for people to expect Super Rugby to explode into some all encompassing global competition defies reality. I have nothing against lateral thinking when it comes to these matters, but I do think people’s expectations and dreams of what Super Rugby could be need to reigned in a little bit. I don’t think it should be seen as the one and only vehicle to fully globalise rugby…
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:38am
Hamish said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:38am | Report comment
I don’t understand why there is any suggestion of another NZ team in Super Rugby, it simply would not work, as the NPC clubs are already all covered under the 5 franchise teams, and adding another would only weaken it. The same problem would occur in Australia, as it is also already spread quite thinly across the 5 francises. Why don’t they just let SA have their 6th franchise and just have a super 16 from now on minus the conferences and just play head to head like in the past, It will not make SA rugby any more dominant, will just weaken the other 5 teams. The only other real option is to include an Argentinian team and a Japanese team but these are more long term projects, as neither would be able to compete for a number of years.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:00am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:00am | Report comment
The NPC clubs are not meaningfully covered by the current teams otherwise they wouldn’t have problems creating local rivalries. A single team for massive Auckland is ludicrous.
I can’t see why if the Argentinian national team is supposed to be able to compete against the SANZAR national teams, a Super team based around that national team shouldn’t be able to compete against SANZAR Super teams.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:48am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Your in a dreamworld if you think there aren’t local rivalriesin NZ rugby.
We have a National Domestic Competition pal thats where local rivalries are played out, not in some trumped up version called Super Rugby which in effect is technically an International Competition so why all this necessity to have local rivalries is beyond me when it is clearly catered for in again I say it OUR OWN DOMESTIC COMPETITON, of which Australia does not have hence the need to turn SR into a surrogate domestic championship for its teams.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:51am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:51am | Report comment
That would suggest that Super rugby, the top level of the game, DOESN’T cater for domestic rivalries? Wouldn’t that be a flaw in the top level of any competition?
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:56am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:56am | Report comment
No its not a flaw KPM honestly mate you really need to think a little.
Domestic competitions are for where local rivalries are fought and won.
Super rugby competition is an international competition.
Look at the Currie Cup for example the atmosphere during a Lions Bulls match in the Cc is completely different than during the SR, also note how well the lesser SR teams do in the CC compared to SR.
Until Australia truly has a domestic rugby competiton you simply will not understand.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:03am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Why couldn’t Super rugby also be a domestic competition, with a final in each conference based on a separate table using points accumulated when playing within the same country?
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:11am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Why should it be KPM
NZ and SA already have domestic competitions that neither country wants to cull to cater to the lack of a domestic competition in Australia.
Australia is the only country without one yet you expect the SANZAAR partners to give away their competitons that have been running for over a hundred years to appease Australian rugby?
February 2nd 2012 @ 11:25am
Bay35Pablo said | February 2nd 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
How does adding a Japanese team or 2 to the Australian conference add to it as our domestic comp?
I believe Oz needs a domestic comp a la the ARC, but whether it will happen …
Expansion as suggested would only happen if the extra revenue could cover the extra wages and travel. That’s a given.
February 2nd 2012 @ 4:13pm
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
This is the point Bay that you are conveniently side stepping.
No country really has the depth to expand its conference and that includes NZ,
South Africa should not be able to enter a team based purely on race and politics, especially considering two of its current teams are there or thereabouts at the bottom of the table every year.
Players moan already about the amount of travel involved in super rugby and now people want to add in teams from Japan and North America, one suggestion even has Russia. These aren’t exactly short haul flights people.
While the idea of having a semi global competiton sounds good, the reality of its practicality and the benefits are pure fanciful at this stage. Like I said above get the competiton right with the current teams before looking at expansion. With the expansions that have already occurred the depth or talent pool has not increased nor has it raised the level of competition; some would say it has lowered the level due to the increasing number of poor teams in the competition.
The only sense KPM makes is that the talent needs to be spread around a little, the like of the Crusaders, Blues,Reds, Stormers and Waratahs stockpiling the talent is certainly not helping.The best players should be on the field playing against the best in the competition not warming the bench for the big teams. In 17 years only 5 teams have won this competition one of those teams 7 times and two others thrice.
There’s something not right fix the base before trying to build your home on top.
February 3rd 2012 @ 1:25pm
Bay35Pablo said | February 3rd 2012 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
In reply to your last comment, I’m not sidestepping anything. I can’t write a fresh article for everyone of these comments. The point was a Japanese side woudln’t dilute Aus, which was the point replied to.
Depth has been an issue used to argue against expansion since Super 12 days (probably before). SARU seems to think it can find talent. NZ seems to have a bit, no matter what the arguments above. Both are better placed than Aus, with the step up from Currie Cup and IPM less than in Aus’s semi pro comps.
Every country seems to have 2 sides that can’t compete every season. Tha between 3 countries with different bases and circumstances. At the end of the day, not everyone can win. SA fans said Aus having 3 bad sides showed it was weak, but I think that was incorrect. The Rebels were a 1st year tyeam and always on a hiding. The Brumbies had serious internal problems. The Force were better than their results showed.
On that basis we should have Sheek’s HC Cup. Take only the best sides from each domestic comp, and ensure the Super comp is the creme de la creme.
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:42am
Rough Conduct said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Why would Argentina, US or Japan want to join Super Rugby? The competition is poorly structured, travelling half way the world to play franchises in a country that doesn’t even care about them (NZ). Argentina already has a two-tiered national provincial competition – something that Australia can’t even manage to do. These countries will be far better of forming their own competitions, developing their own talent in a sustainable, meaningful domestic competition. SR is far from an ideal structure – why do we assume that everyone wants to be a part of it?
Any evolution of the current SR format that does not involve moving to a qualification championship is complete nonsense – it is simply unsustainable to have the 5th and 6th best team from my country flying half way round the world to play the 5th and 6th best team from your country – no one cares, no one watches. People want to watch the provinces they identify with, they will support them through good times and bad, they also want to see the best v the best – this is exactly what a qualification championship delivers. The current format cannot produce the support that is required to take southern hemisphere to the next level, SR is completely maxed out.
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:53am
allblackfan said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:53am | Report comment
RC, NZ cares. As from next year, each NZ Super rugby franchise will be able to pick two Argentinian Test players in their squad. I also heard the Blues are talking to Hernandez about playing this year.
I wonder if the Aust franchises will be doing the same thing?
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:11am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:11am | Report comment
A mixture of one’s own provinces and neighbours, and other countries, is perfectly possible.
The question is one of balance.
Besides it’s totally unrealistic to think SANZAR are going to throw out Super rugby now. It would be wiser to think how it could be adapted to appeal more to local interests and favour competition within each country.
February 2nd 2012 @ 11:28am
Bay35Pablo said | February 2nd 2012 @ 11:28am | Report comment
ARG, USA and (to a lesser degree) Japan would want to because:
1. It jump starts their domestic professional ranks, which they can build from a squad or 2. Doing it with their own comp would requires multiple squads.
2. International competition is the attraction of Super Rugby. Playing other countries best. Just like HC.
February 2nd 2012 @ 11:52am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Bay35Pablo indeed the use of Super rugby is indeed colossal in these countries. Not only the reasons you mention, but as a tool to promote the game they can show the public an elite level product, and develop an audience that way: it is a weapon for promotion of extraordinary power.. If Super rugby could get on a TV network, it would have an appeal to a potentially vast audience, far beyond what the young national competitions of these countries could offer for many years. What’s more, the level of their national teams performance would rocket with continuous exposure to such a high standard. It wouldn’t take from their local competitions anyway, as their best players all play in Europe and would have to be brought back from there.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:01am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
NZ and Australia should not pander to the political issues of South Africa.
No team should be permitted to the competition on Race it should be on merit and merit alone.
Sadly South Africa and Australia consistently prop up the bottom of the table with their teams – SA the Lions and Cheetahs.
South Africa does not warrant another team and it should not be allowed to happen, if they want to enter the Southern Kings then one of their poor performing teams need to go.
Why should I as a fan and pay per view subscriber have to have South Africas appalling politics now forced on me in the sporting arena.
Sort your own backyard out SA it’s not SANZAARS to do for you.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:24am
bazza said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Oz and NZ will have to toe the SA line whether they like it or not – SA controls the purse strings of SANZR both through gate takings and their pay tv rights. Anyhow, SA has been funding the growth of Oz rugby for more than a decade – why can’t they develop their own players for a change ?
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:53am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:53am | Report comment
What are they going to do Bazza threaten to go North again, remebering of course the north doesn’t want them in their competitons?
P.S All three unions get an equal slice of the pie now and I very much doubt NZ or Australia will be willing to let go of any increased revenue since the inception of S15 so SA can enter a racially selected team. I would argue if we are forced to have another poor team forced on us that SA do so and fund it under its current revenue share.
Its disgusting that we should be held to ransom based on race politics in SA that have absolutely nothing to do with NZ or Australia. A team should be entered on merit and merit only
February 2nd 2012 @ 11:26am
Bay35Pablo said | February 2nd 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Bazza, no this has changed now from memory. That used to be the cut, but I believe the unions now get more based on their domestic comp TV rights, meaning Aus gets less (as it has none). I.e. Currie Cup and IPM deliver $ to each.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:28am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
The only decent thing about their proposition to enter another team is a return to a complete round robin and doing away with this BS conference system that was generated to guarantee SA and Australia finalists in the big league. Since the inception of Super rugby South Africa and Australia have had a very poor showing in Finals series.
From 1996-2010 during the four teams finals system. Australia failed to Qualify 3 times with South Africa missing the cut twice and New Zealands sole year not represented in the finals series in 2001.
Od the 64 finals places up for grabs NZ over the years NZ on its owned amassed 31 spots winning 10 titles in the process during the 16 season duration of the round robin system. There three occasions in this period where NZ qualified three teams for the finals 98, 03 & 09.
The Conference system was strongly advocated by Australia and South Africa due to this very reason in a round robin competition both countries were struggling to field championship winning teams consistently arguably South Africa certainly had come right from 2007. The conference system works in favour of the weaker conferences and I do believe South Africa has realised that due to the current lack of truly competitive teams in the conferences it (top 6) actually boosts certain teams and hinders others.
I was not in favour of the conference system from the outset and in all honesty this is the only sense coming out of SA right now that the competition return to a round robin format.
February 2nd 2012 @ 11:29am
Bay35Pablo said | February 2nd 2012 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Rugbug, SA were responsible for the guaranteed qualifier system. Aus never sought it, but were happy to take their chances if they were good enough.
If you disagree, find me a source that supports your allegation. Google awaits …
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:38am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Except it won’t return from the conference system, not least because it produced bigger crowds because of more local derbies.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:16am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:16am | Report comment
KPM are you actually paying attention to what is going on?
SA want to enter the Southern Kings and return to a round robin competition.
If NZ and Australia allow a team to enter from SA this is what is going to happen, under the current conference system it would require more games being played and all current Franchises across SANZAAR are against that. BY permitting a 6th SA team the competiton would return to a round robin format with fewer games and a return to a four match finals series.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:22am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Australia would love more games, in fact NZ and SA would do because of the increased revenue if it didn’t mean moving the Currie and ITM Cup.
SA WILL get their 6th team, you can bet on it. The only thing is to make sure Western Sydney/Adelaide and South Auckland get one each as well.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:29am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:29am | Report comment
When you come back to reality that is of course you were here in the first place KPM let me know.
As already stated neither union or franchise wants to increase the amount of games played in a SR season, but you continue to ignore the facts and present wild and totally unsupported statements.
If SA get their 6th team reality is the conference system is likely to fall to the way side and a return to round robin matches is likely.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:34am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:34am | Report comment
Super rugby will expand, as long as their are spectator markets available for it to do so.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:49am
Rugbug said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Thats the issue KPM SR is struggling to attract spectators as it currently is in NZ and Australia what do you think adding more teams will do?
February 2nd 2012 @ 11:03am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Rugbug the main problem it has are hoarding of players in one or two franchises (within each conference) instead of even distribution. If this situation were redressed then currently weak franchises would instantly strengthen and crowds would increase.
February 2nd 2012 @ 11:04am
Brett McKay said | February 2nd 2012 @ 11:04am | Report comment
KPM, I hope by “as long as their (sic) are spectator markets available ” you don’t just mean population. Surely you’re smart enough to know that population doesn’t necessarily equate to spectators. Look at Sydney, look at Auckland..
February 2nd 2012 @ 11:20am
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Brett funnily enough this is an issue I have been pondering for a while, and largely in response to an ancient post of yours on the subject that I managed to retrieve by googling ‘Brett Mckay corridor’ as that was the part of Australia you were referring to.
So it seems to me that markets fall into different categories and need to be approached differently.
Take a city such as Sydney or Auckland. It can either be developed as a single identity, or broken up into areas with separate identities. So the NRL has 8 local identities in Sydney, while rugby has 1.
Now if the Waratahs or Blues win or are entertaining crowds will come, but if they fail crowds will go.
However, with a range of teams in different areas of a city, there is more market stability as fans identify with a different area of the city, and so were there 3 teams in each city mentioned, it’s unlikely that more than one of them would be losing and boring at once. Hence, two thirds of fans would remain.
For this to happen however, a large city needs to be a real rugby town in order to hold more than one team and be split up, meaning therefore that Sydney or Auckland could be, whereas Melbourne or Perth couldn’t.
So I think the one team idea fails in Sydney and Auckland where a single team in the rugby capital subsequently has too great expectations, whereas more local teams would provide more fans interest.
However, going back to an old article of yours where you point out that the ARU rather than take on the NRL headlong has chosen to take less strongly contested, new markets, Adelaide would seem to be ideal as there is no NRL competition.
Southern Australia is 1.7 million with no NRL: a sitting duck (in a country where rugby, partly through the Wallabies, has a strong presence, there is a potential interest everywhere).
So I’m not saying that any area, such as the sunshine coast, central coast etc…is capable of holding a team simply because they have a decent and growing population, but that certain markets that meet some of a variety of criteria are safe expansion possibilities.
So more or less some things are safe, others less so.
However, given that there have only been 5 elite teams in Australia, who knows how many the market could hold?
February 2nd 2012 @ 12:16pm
Brett McKay said | February 2nd 2012 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
would you mind Googling that again and posting a link then? I don’t recall ever suggesting that the ARU should go after the NRL-less Adelaide. In fact, I think I’ve been consistently cautious about expansion in general.
I will, however, happily stand corrected..
February 2nd 2012 @ 12:40pm
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Brett you didn’t suggest any such thing: in fact you concluded the opposite. What you said was that Adelaide would be the next market to tap, according to some criteria.
You said that the ARU expanded into new rather than heartland markets in a different article.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/05/03/rotation-polices-rugbys-literal-catch-22/
Your comment is somewhere down the first page I think.
Allthough I can’t find the one where you point out that Perth and Melbourne did not exist as markets until rugby went there.
February 2nd 2012 @ 2:24pm
Brett McKay said | February 2nd 2012 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
Ah yes, I do recall all that now (May 2011); you asked me the rather loaded question of where I thought the next Australian team should come from.
It’s true, I did say that Adelaide probably is the next “new market to tap” for the ARU, which was said in the context of supporting the move to go to Perth instead of Melbourne in 2005 (and as opposed to going to an existing rugby market in Western Sydney). I also make mention of the AFL bringing in the Gold Coast and GWS for the same reasons (corporate v population).
However, in the same response, I also made these points (some of which will ring a bell here today):
- “…a booming population doesn’t necessarily equate to “crying out for a team”.” and
- “So it’s easy to say that all these growing areas with million-plus populations want a team or deserve a team, but in reality, I think Australia has all the teams it can support physically and financially now.”
And I finished up by concluding that my answer to your question is ‘nowhere’. Which is still my opinion now, for what it’s worth..
The original article mentioned was this one, from April 2011: http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/04/05/the-most-significant-game-of-rugby-in-years/
February 2nd 2012 @ 2:38pm
kingplaymaker said | February 2nd 2012 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
I did indeed remember all of that, and that’s why in my lengthy, long-contemplated and worked out answer above, I differentiated between areas that are just ‘booming’ populations and therefore are risky for teams, such as the sunshine and central coasts, and those such as Adelaide, Western Sydney and Gold Coast, that are not only ‘booming’ populations but also satisfy various other criteria for teams. Just up the page.