Relegation or the merger of two teams appear the only options as the South African Rugby Union again met with its Super Rugby sides on Thursday about the problem of having six contenders for five places next year.
SARU held talks with representatives of the five teams currently in the three-nation competition plus the Southern Kings and, although the governing body is seeking to ensure no team would be “damaged” by a solution, it’s doubtful that can happen.
Super organiser SANZAR has regularly insisted it is not in a position to expand the tournament to 16 teams before the end of the 2015 season. That means something will have to give to make way for the Port Elizabeth-based Kings, who have been promised a place in 2013 by SARU.
Chief executive Greg Peters told The Associated Press there was no change to SANZAR’s stance on the number of teams, which will stay as five each from South Africa, Australia and New Zealand for the next three seasons at least.
SARU said the South African parties would meet again on Monday, while a final outcome is only expected after a meeting of the national union’s decision-making General Council on July 13.
The Johannesburg-based Lions – currently Super Rugby’s bottom team but also South Africa’s reigning Currie Cup champion – would likely be relegated if SARU decides to exclude a franchise to make way for the Kings.
The Lions could merge with the Bloemfontein-based Cheetahs to form one team, although that would almost certainly cut both outfits’ income.
Lions president Kevin de Klerk told a local radio station it would be “devastating” if the Lions were relegated from the southern hemisphere’s top provincial tournament.
It would also throw in doubt the future of the Lions’ home stadium, the historic Ellis Park – venue for South Africa’s famous Nelson Mandela-inspired victory in the 1995 World Cup final.
Relegation of a side could also produce a backlash from the five current teams, who agreed to the inclusion of the Kings last year on the understanding that none of the current representatives would be “compromised.”
“Everyone was agreed that we must secure a solution that does not damage any of the existing franchises,” SARU chief executive Jurie Roux said on Thursday following the meeting at Johannesburg’s O.R. Tambo International Airport.
“It is a complex issue with no easy answers and we are determined to leave no stone unturned in finding that answer. A number of options were discussed but there is currently no preferred alternative to recommend to the General Council.”
MR
Guest
Private funding model is a poor long term solution as owners can leave at any time a good example of problems this causes is wasps in England . In any event give low crowd numbers in NZ at moment no chance that 6th team is viable and strong argument for reducing NZ conference system to NPC level then have 3 qualifiers who play home and away against other conference teams
Emric
Guest
Not all the broadcasters would be required to agree only one
Damo
Guest
Underarm Brilliant solution! If the broadcasters agree. As brilliant as Trevor's bowling.
Bakkies
Guest
Why would they want to exploit Auckland. There isn't enough money in NZ to keep another squad of 30 plus on the books. SA won't get a 6th side and the ARU is not stupid enough to campaign for another Aussie team. We don't need it and they are trying to establish rugby in AFL states with the existing sides
matthew
Guest
^Spoken like a true rugby man well aware of the great traditions of the game...
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
There seems only to be one of them! Though it's nice to see 'drink responsibly' on the 20th ad you've read :-)
shungmao
Guest
mate how do i look on your profile, not sure what to do?? Cheers
Brett McKay
Expert
I have my doubts that would be happening, given the very public rebuttals of SOuth Africa's desire to force expansion... Noticed the in-comment ads last night, interesting...
The Great G Nepia
Guest
I honestly can't be bothered with the South Africans - cut them loose!!!
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Let's hope that's what they're doing at this very moment: I meanwhile have some strange and compelling subconscious urge to drink some Bourbon...Wild Turkey maybe..where is his urge coming from?
Brett McKay
Expert
that's what I've said, it would at least be worth asking the question..
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Except Bakkies SA also want another team, so that's two out of three, and New Zealand certainly should as it would allow them to properly exploit Auckland. So it would be SANZAR's job to give its three constituent members what they want.
Bakkies
Guest
Why should Sanzar care about this it's not their job. Its not Sanzar's role to pander to Australian Rugby and offer them more unsustainable sides to further clutter up a congested schedule.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Shungmao if you look on my profile I have a fairly recent and colossal article on this very subject.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
I don't agree Bakkies. Every year dozens of teenagers who play rugby and league go to league because it has millions of teams offering contracts. These players could be signed up as youngsters with more teams. The same goes for South Auckland.
Underarm
Guest
Easy fix to this problem is that SA pays NZ and Aust Half the cost of setting up and running the two new teams for the Australian and New Zealand Conference
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Brett A) broadcasting deals or any contract can be negotiated mid-contract and new terms can be agreed (they could at least try...). There would be more product to offer with more teams. B) the spread of money is not why they aren't adding more teams. C) the SANZAR teams have just got a huge windfall from the IRB. D) Private owners could cover the cost of the new franchises so the money wouldn't have to be shared out amongst more teams. If the broadcasters say no they can't do it all and probably it wouldn't be legal. But I doubt that if you offered a broadcaster new markets and more product they would pay more and at least wouldn't object even if they wouldn't pay. They were willing to pay more if the new Super team was in Melbourne last time because it's a big new market, and they were willing to pay more because the new format meant more matches and therefore more product. A new team in each conference now would add significant new markets and more matches (even without lengthening the season). In any case, couldn't SANZAR at least call them up and ask? One phone call isn't so hard to make.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
KiwiDave it would be great if South Africa had 8 teams but not like that: with evenly distributed talent so all 8 were close to each other (they, like the other SANZAR countries would discover more talent with more teams to do so). 8 in NZ and 8 in Australia, with evenly distributed talent and some foreign imports/NRL converts to strengthen things a little in Australia, and then it would be a happy world.
Bakkies
Guest
The Rebels didn't attract a large number of Australian players to come back to Australia and weren't out to poach from other states. They had the opportunity of signing the young players that Jake White is using at the Brumbies two years ago but they went down the foreign player route. The NH countries are cutting down on the number of foreign players.
Brett McKay
Expert
no Mark, I meant I'd be happy if there were only 4 Samoan players with a combined value of less than Rocky Elsom's. My worry is that it might be more than 4. In days gone by, it most certainly would've been more...