The time has come once again where SANZAR are sitting behind closed doors to decide the future of the Super Rugby competition and the Rugby Championship.
As a whole I am completely happy with the new format of the Rugby Championship which allows South Africa to play Australia, New Zealand and Argentina on a home and away basis every year. So I doubt any tweaking is necessary in that regard.
Some may be of the opinion that some of the issues prevelant during these negotiations are because of SARU throwing their toys out of the cot, but bear with me for the moment.
South Africa has their own unique challenges to face, and the elephant in the room is the political climate which is not going to go away.
The Kings rightfully or wrongfully have demanded and have been included into Super Rugby for 2013, yet after the first promotion and relegation round against the Lions, find themselves on the back foot as they will have to beat the Lions by eight or more to stay in the Super rugby tournament.
It is necessary to have a rethink as far as the current Super Rugby tournament is concerned.
I am not going to discuss the current format, as I have done so numerous times in the past, and suffice to say I am not convinced it’s the best way to go.
There are certain limiting factors and negatives in regards to the current system.
1. Travel time and expenses.
2. The length of the tournament
3. It impacts on the importance of the Currie Cup.
4. I limits the individual development of each country.
For me the one and only way forward is for a closed conference system. In other words each country has their teams compete in a system where you qualify by playing against playing teams from your conference. This will alleviate travel, expenses and reduce the time necessary for the preliminary rounds.
There is, however, a big advantage to a closed conference system which has been completely ignored previously, and that is the individual development of each nation’s rugby structure.
For me the ideology of having South Africa, New Zealand and Australia combine together to ensure the financial sustainability of professional rugby is a noble idea.
But by looking at the picture from only a collective aspect it has caused the countries to ignore their domestic needs for development. They instead keep on looking at how to fit a square, a round peg and a triangle into the same hole.
The necessity to look at the priorities of each nation and what their individual goals are should take precedent over what the collective goals are.
South Africa and New Zealand have domestic competitions that have proud traditions and history. Australia need to develop and sustain a domestic competition which can stand without SANZAR.
The reality is we have all been losing a plethora of talented rugby players for two main reasons: we do not have enough professional teams to accommodate them and therefore they run off overseas where there are more opportunities.
Second comes the money, it is a fact that we cannot compete financially against French clubs who have salary caps of 10 million Euros per club, and often tycoons manage to find ways to circumvent that system with ease.
Imagine a system where each country within the scope of Super Rugby has their domestic competition as their preliminary round robin. Part and parcel of the same competition, but separate in its development.
In other words, each nation can now use their premier domestic competition as the basis of not only qualifying to the next round, but also as the basis of how their premier teams are financed and developed.
Imagine that each nation can decide on how many teams there will be in their conference, in other words they notify at each negotiation of new broadcasting deals how many teams will be in their conference for the next 4-5 year period.
Broadcasting revenue is then calculated on that basis.
For every team one nation has more than the others, they start two weeks earlier to get the extra two weeks (home and away) in.
This will not affect any other nation in any way whatsoever. Based on this, depending on finances and development criteria of each nation, this allows the flexibility for each to grow their professional system in any way they deem is beneficial.
Ultimately, if one country decides they want to build twelve professional teams, nothing prevents them from doing so.
At the end of the day, the next round (after the closed conference pool rounds) will have the same number of teams qualify from each conference.
Now from here the format can take different options.
You could have a top nines, top sixes, and have a round robin with these teams, or go straight into a playoff situation.
If you go straight into a playoff situation the seeding might be a little iffy, but a round robin can easily provide enough interest for broadcasters as you will have only the top teams competing.
There is, of course, the financial impact of such a system to consider.
Each nation will earn their revenue from their conference. Gate money, merchandising and sponsorships depends on each individual Union.
The revenue from the next phase will be split three ways, and should fetch a handsome dollar on pure quality alone.
The biggest reason why I believe this is the most workable idea of the lot is simply because in effect SARU will be able to run and develop our domestic system without having any restraints imposed on them by their partners.
This way we can grow our number of professional teams to the maximum that will be financially sustainable and provide many more opportunity for players to play professional rugby within the country.
Australia will be able to grow their domestic rugby and finally be able to compete with the NRL and AFL.
New Zealand will be able to give the ITM its rightful place and develop it in line with their individual needs.
Overseas markets aren’t ready to receive us. Japan’s club rugby is financed by big corporate companies with little revenue and gate money. America is a long way off from being a viable market.
It is up to SANZAR to develop the sport, not only as a collective, but also ensure the development of each individual nation without putting restraints on each other.
I believe the above format accommodates both priorities.
Luvthisgame
Guest
"Just one last thing. The Bulls have lost a lot of players for one reason only, the fact that SARU allows players from abroad to represent SA, as soon as we stop that nonsense, and select home based players only, players will then have to decide which way they want to go, if they want to go after the money, then by all means do that, otherwise, play in Sa and have a chance to represent your country. It is however nonsense in my view, that players can have their bread buttered on both sides, in the past our Springboks would leave in their late 20′s or even early thirties to make money abroad, now they are in their early twenties, and leaving, because Meyer has no loyalty to home grown players." I do agree with the issue of players being able to head OS and still represent their home nation. It a choice that I hope one day to have to make but in the meantime I want to chase this dream by developing my skills and putting in the hard work whilst making ends meet on a starter contract. This generation of players, just starting out in professional rugby, are the next group of internationals but without quality game time we may never reach the level required. In your scenario, those who are aiming high would need to align themselves with the top franchises to a) maintain a profile with selectors and b) keep up game day development. This in itself leads to a perpetuation of the lower teams either staying mediocre or becoming the development pool for the more successful teams. You talk of loyalty but then begin initiating a them and us mentality. In regard to the Lions - agreed, they have been the backbone of the Currie cup for years. However why does thins mean you need the Kings? The table shows the cup winners since inception and in reality you have 5 teams that have won 99% of the cups - all of whom relate to 5 Super Franchises? Western Province 33 Four shared 2012 Northern Transvaal/Blue Bulls 23 Four shared 2009 Transvaal/Gauteng Lions/Golden Lions 10 One shared 2011 Natal Sharks 6 2010 Orange Free State/Free State Cheetahs 4 One shared 2007 Griqualand West/Griquas 3 1970 Border/Border Bulldogs 2 Two shared 1934 Where is the issue?
Rassie
Roar Rookie
First off all do not take this up personally but any mention of conference system is the most stupid idea ever. We are really moaning cause of team playing week after week and a final that keeps on appearing one sided due to sides traveling 12k east in less than 7 days. Which make the result pretty obvious. We will never see a fair contested final again with traveling not the factor because of a conference system now you want to create another? Have anyone considered the difference between flying east and flying west and the major performance impact? Just remove the Rebels and the Kings again and return to the Super 14. Tournament was unpredictable and everyone beating everyone and fair less Aussie team made the traveling more even for Saffer sides
Rassie
Roar Rookie
Tane because the NZ strategy is to design to tire out the bigger packs like SA before handing the ball over. Now you want SA to try and emulate NZ and tire themselves out? You must remember the NZ way were innefective at crunch time till the Law changes forced everyone to try and follow the Kiwi's. Rugby is no more a game where every team can play his own style and truimph over another as the laws are against it. SA can't kick it from set piece possession anymore by carrying it back as the laws were tweaked to favor NZ. So with a big pack of forwards we have to get a no 9 who can box kick with accuracy and create space for the ten to roll the ball into. Sadly though Fourie Du Preez could do it but its hard finding his replacements. He could kick to the wings thus creating space for Steyn to kick into. We play like we play cause of the tools we have. NZ play like they play because of their tools.
Mike
Guest
Yeah, pity 98% of the world doesn't realise that... :)
TriangleFlatDog
Guest
You are in dreamland mate!!!!!! Yes, players will always chase bigger money irrespective of the code but the bottom line is that RL is a far better spectacle than RU......period!
Luvthisgame, thanks for your input. I fully understand where you are coming from, and your perspective just puts another additional requirement into the mix. I understand it is hard to find a solution for every one, however the reality is we need to look at each country's requirements and also outside influences that cannot always be ignored. From a player's perspective you want to earn as much money as possible in a relatively short period of time. From South Africa's point of view we have politicians demanding better representation. We therefor need a sixth team, it is easy to think just get rid of the Lions, but the Lions have been a power house in SA since the Currie Cup started more than a century ago. As a player I am sure you value tradition and history, so to lose that is not an option. Australia have their own problems, from what I have seen they simply believe without Super Rugby their domestic system will deteriorate. NZ needs Super Rugby from the finance point of view as their population is very small. So how does one solve all these problems to the satisfaction of everyone. Perhaps take my model and then say, OK, have the top three teams from each nation play for the cup, and the bottom teams all play for a plate. This way you can ensure that all teams are involved for the remainder of the season. Alternatively it seems someone is always going to get the short end of the stick. I for one cannot see why politics and the requirements of other nations cause the demise of the Lions. somewhere a compromise must be reached, one that suits, SA, OZ, NZ and players. Just one last thing. The Bulls have lost a lot of players for one reason only, the fact that SARU allows players from abroad to represent SA, as soon as we stop that nonsense, and select home based players only, players will then have to decide which way they want to go, if they want to go after the money, then by all means do that, otherwise, play in Sa and have a chance to represent your country. It is however nonsense in my view, that players can have their bread buttered on both sides, in the past our Springboks would leave in their late 20's or even early thirties to make money abroad, now they are in their early twenties, and leaving, because Meyer has no loyalty to home grown players.
Chivas Geoff from Brisbain suggested we go back to the format of the Super 14, that may then be the only other solution as SA can then have their sixth team and everyone else plays everyone else. More preferable than the current format. Only problem is everyone moans about not enough derbies and the other half wants inter conference matches. It will also be shorter than the current format, taking only 17 weeks, 15 matches plus 2 Bye weeks for travel. The alternative is cancel the whole thing
Chivas
Guest
Why Manawatu? North Harbour, North Auckland/BOP/Hawkes Bay Counties, Southland with Waikato, Auckland, Taranaki and Wellington. That was the first division...
Chivas
Guest
Your last paragraph is very close to the truth. NZ and Australia can't support their own derbies effectively. If we are brutally honest SAbprops up rugby in these countries. The viewer numbers in Aus and NZ are too small. How would SA feel about subsidising those derbies. I appreciate it is a bit rude to take money and then dictate the rules, especially considering SA is used to paying money and owning the refs .... I mean rules :-). Anyway I don't have the solution for the political wrangle that is SA rugby. Why not go a step further, pull out of super rugby and just play RC. What you are suggesting is water down the competition or we are going to go play amongst ourselves and turn up at the end for the finals. Why not just have the Currie cup, NZ has the NPC.... Aus - who knows what they have and play the best of those comps. No injection to keep players. They all leave and SA rise to the top with NZ and Aus just producing players for Europe and bring them back as required to play. I think your proposal is self serving (which is not unfair as the counter to that is SA prop up rugby in NZ and Aus) and just opens the floodgates for tape and pillage of these local competitions. The good thing is SA should dominate the super rugby if anyone cares any longer. Just as soon go down to the park and watch club footy.
Mike
Guest
Oh okay. I want us to get the crowds, so its just a matter of different starting points I guess.
Luvthisgame
Guest
Thanks for that - as I mentioned, this is my dream and I have worked hard to get to this bit and will continue too. However, this is no longer club rugby. If I am ever going to get a shot at playing at an international level, I have to live this 24/7 as would anyone and it just is not possible unless the young players can survive on what we get offered. I am not talking mega bucks but enough to live, eat (I do this quite a bit) and travel to and from training. Spread the money pool too thin and its the next generation that will be hurting.
norpus
Guest
Very well put from the players perspective the rest of us are spectating, mostly from desks and armchairs Well done for speaking out your POV
norpus
Guest
because I have my tongue in cheek? :) I am not for diluting the main product, which I believe Oz did by insisting on the same number of teams There is not the player talent base or crowds in Oz to sustain what SA can, or even NZ As luvthisgame rightly points out, there is only so much money to go around to the full time players in the expanded teams. If we want better pro rugby, there is a limit to what the coffers have, and therefore the # of pro players. If the stars must be lured/retained with megabucks (for the national perspective as much as SR), it leaves less for the starters/potentials. The Beibers /Nonus of the game are clearly not worth as much in SR as they had thought - and maybe it comes down to a balance of paying the bulk rather than the superstars and let them go?
Seagull
Guest
Have we all forgotten that three NZ teams won 15 games in total in the season? If there's daylight between them and the rest it's because they are so far behind!
Luvthisgame
Guest
Whilst all of the discussion above is supposed to be focused on developing this game we all are passionate about, no one has mentioned the players themselves. I have just penciled in my first contract to play with a SR franchise and my goal, of course, is to some day play for my country. I have given up the past 5 years to study and training, with support of my family to get this first baby step on the way to a dream. To make it even to here, I have not been able to work full time due to training commitments and these commitments are only going to get tougher. All the talk is about expanding the number of franchises, developing the player base and hence building a stronger union in each country. Nice idea but who is paying for this. We are not talking NPC, Currie Cup or Shute Shield where players rock up twice a week in the evening after work, this is full time. How can any individual country support a fully professional player base with squads of 35-40 players? During this "Champions league" playoff top nine scenario, the comments of the masses stating that if you are not in the finals or playing for the National team you can just go back and play club rugby, are farcical when looking at it from a players earning perspective. On top of my small base salary I will get bonuses for every game I play, every try I score and meeting technical KPIs. You are now telling me I will play less games and thus earn less overall. With the conference system "closed" the decrease in sponsorship will again cut into the pool of funds to cover the expansion and ultimately players will be driven overseas to earn a buck during their brief playing career. 8 Bulls head to Europe screams a recent headline - why? is it because he S15 system is broken? That the Kings are being closed down this year? That there is no room or opportunity for these players? No. Its all about earning money whilst you can. Look, I am just a youngster starting out but I do know what I have put in to get this far and I do know what it will take to make the next step. If I cannot train every day on skills, fitness, strength and teamwork because I cannot survive on my now reduced salary where does that leave us - following the Bulls overseas? going back to play at my local club (which I love BTW) and cutting off my dream to hunt for a job. For me.... it would be a crying shame.
Mike
Guest
Why?
norpus
Guest
allow a 6th SA team, no problem if that is one of the main issues Take a place from Australia - the only reason we got a fifth here (undeservedly IMO) is because the Melbourne lobby missed out on the 4th team and the ARU CEO was a hard bastard negotiater! Johns gone now and there is nothing like that left, so take one away and give it to SA? hehe
KiwiDave
Roar Guru
Thats what I think to. Some absolutely cracking matches. Tha Aussie Derbies though, well the most entertaining ones of them were the Rebels and Force LOL
KiwiDave
Roar Guru
Spot on. NZ have the NPC and SA have the Currie Cup and both are well established. Australia has tried and failed on numerous occasions to create a similar competition. It will fall flat on its back in this regard
norpus
Guest
Ummm I am sure you would realise half the support in Oz for rugby probably comes from expat SA and NZ and Brits etc? Come to a game here and see for yourself The number of 'new supporters' I see at each game in my hometown each 2nd week is quite astonishing,. Bulls, Stormers, even Lions supporters come out of the woodwork and you realise how cosmopolitan many cities/crowds are And I tell you, it is less when there are derbies! We know as the away team supporters always sit right in front of us Not so many travel interstatein Oz to watch, due to distance - the Force support is weakest, but good on them for travelling 4 hours by plane! So if Kiwis or SA on here think, we'll take our bat and ball and run elsewhere, well then you'll be disappointing a reasonably large portion of the support this current format has. And if you think this is only to do with TV money, I believe that is shortsighted. Why do you think it is easier to win at home? It is due to local atmosphere from attending fans. The team players can't hear the armchair viewers on the field.... :)