A possible solution for SANZAR and the future of Super Rugby

6 sa teams, 5 aussie teams, 5 nz teams, 2 argentine teams. 6 pacific nations(2 teams each from tonga,fiji and samoa) or just 3 parcific and 3 japanese teams.. . 5 pots (6 sa teams, 5 aussie teams, 5 nz teams, 2 argentine teams and 6/3 pacific teams and/or the 3 japanese teams). . . Super rugby would finish in the last weekend of may, meaning the RC could be moved to jul/aug, meaning all the Currie Cup, NPC, ARC teams will be at full strength

You have got to be Joe King!

Chivas - Our structures are actually the same as NZ NZ has 14 professional sides going into 5 franchises (9 premier I think) SA has 14 professional sides going into 5 franchises (6 shortly to be 8 premier) Our differences are - Number of players - Geographic dispersion. - SA usually has a more dominant union in each franchise - Hence the incorrect perception that it extends the Currie Cup We only have 2 major centres close to each other (and they happen to be 2 of the biggest unions). THey are 2 big to go into one franchise The other 4 unions are geographically far apart. At least 500,600, 700km and more So we have an isolated Eastern Cape that produces lots of players. We need that 6th side from a national perspective. That feeling doesn't extend to most supporters since a 6th side will dilute us at 1st and make each supporters beloved franchise slightly weaker. But in the long run they will come through

I am not sure we should be as high handed as fredstone suggests. I don't like the financial bullying. Flip side if NZ and Aus are going to gang up on the issues then perhaps its fair to use the muscle. AndyS - By generation of revenue fredstone will refer to SANZAR TV revenue. Gate revenue goes straight to the franchises/unions/national unions and as does team sponsorship. I would assume SANZAR also sell tournament naming rights. The number bandied about reliably has varied slightly but it is always well above 50% sometimes above 60% Its a simple consequence of number of viewers. Often when there is a top game involving Antipodeon sides only (ie. no SA sides) then there are often more SA viewers than anywhere else. The revenue is split 33/33/33 as is the cost (travel, accom, admin etc.) The flip side is as Wii suggests, SA viewers are not just watching the SA side, they are watching the other side to and yes we would not make the same amount of revenue by playing at home only As for looking North I know that SA could earn more TV revenue BUT -Will we get 6 sides? - Will it make space for our Currie Cup season wise? After all those are our key needs - Will it be practical season wise? - Playing in SA in Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb - Not that wise - And also very important - We want to be playing the Antipodeons. Esp NZ sides which we regard as the benchmark So it takes us back to the original 2 points - 6 sides - Space for Currie Cup AND it needs to be meaningful - Being exiled to a meaningless conference achieves zero If you think about it, whether there is 17 or 18 sides doesn't matter I must admit SANZAR and the Australians are very good at making minor issues seems like the sticking point and thereby making SA seem unreasonable. Much gets made about the so called guaranteed play off spot but that isn't the problem. The problem is this dratted conference system It suits one union and one union only - Australia. Yet NZ voted with them and we have the conference system.

Fine. Leave then. You talk a good talk.

South Africa would not generate anywhere near the same revenue without NZ and Aus involved. The sooner the SARU understands this the better, which in reality I already think they do hence why they are still at the table.

As you say, if SA generated 60% of the revenue there wouldn't be a discussion. What the statistic actually means is the SA gets 60% of the benefit from the comp without contributing anything like a majority share. How else would you explain why they are even talking?

Sorry to hear about your crap, unfortunately that doesn't suite SA and your domestic structures are not our problem. If you wan't us in super rugby then I suggest you do as we say since we generate up to 60% of the revenue. We would also like to ellect two of the members on the disciplinary committee and decide who the referees boss should be. Apart from that you and NZ can squabble about who the CEO should be as long as their is an even split of board members between the four partnering nations.

Aru does need to get off their arse and do something but the nrl is definitely a threat. They have their hands on the best young talent in oz and if the nzru think that their black jersey will keep their best youngsters safe they are delusional. Nzru and aru need to work together to definitively claim a strong market share for themselves. Itm with oz teams would make a comp that would make a real dent in the nrl. It is fantastic footy.

The threat to rugby in Australia is if it doesn't develop its own domestic competiotion it will continue to slowly die, it is the one country that does not need Super rugby. The NRL is only a threat to rugby union in Australia if they do not develop their own comp.

DB, you're right about the NZ Super franchises comprising of neighbouring provincial unions ( a benefit of living in a small country; easier to get around!). The ARU wants a longer Super season in order to compete with the AFL and NRL seasons. The ARU is playing catch-up to these two codes (plus soccer) and it's been forced into making some dubious decisions that are hurting it!

I'm confident there will be a national domestic competition up and running in Australia within 12 months. Bill Pulver's legacy depends on it.

"Australia develop its own naitonal competition" The reason we dont have a national comp is there is no money in it. We need the S15, more than anyone else. South Africa can have as many teams as they want, if they want 6 let them have 6. Without super rugby, our best players will be playing for Souths in Brisbane one weekend, the All Blacks the next, then the Sprinboks, back to club footy, then Argentina, it cant possibly work. All our guys will head to Japan and Europe en masse. I think we can do a 6 Australian, 6 Kiwi and 6 SA arrangement where the South Africans play each other twice, the Aussies and Kiwis play each other once, then each south african side will play 3 home, and 3 away against the antipodeans, which means they will play sometimes every second year. The threat to Australian and New Zealand rugby isnt South Afria, it is the NRL.

IMHO way forward is to scratch the current format for Super Rugby. Use the domestic comps as a way for clubs to qualify for a 16 team Super Rugby tournament. The tournament could take płace in September/October and be divided into 4 groups of 4 teams.

you couldnt move june tests to july when will NH players have time off there seasons finish at the end of may

Compromise? Through the last 2 revisions of SR SA has done nothing but compromise Two things were important to SA - most important was making space for our Currie Cup to be played - we hoped that NZ would feel the same about their NPC. Obviously not - 6 sides - SR isn't exactly an extension of the Currie Cup - there are 14 unions and 5 franchises. We want 6. The smaller unions have interests in the franchises. So in that way we are the same as NZ Now I don't know everything about the NZ but we have a geographical challenge. In NZ I would imagine that a larger union got together with smaller unions to make up a franchise and those unions were geographically close to each other? Our larger unions are far apart (with the exception of the Bulls and lions) . The Eastern Cape is isolated by distance and needs a franchise to become a major player. Now the compromises we made in the previous 2 rounds were our own fault. It was our bad negotiating. We sent a boy to deal with oNeill and lost. How we devalued the Currie Cup over the years is beyond me. Despite this the Currie Cup is still keenly supported. I don't get why NZ didn't protect their NPC and instead they supported a tourney that propped up their partner. My main gripe has always been "why does the super rugby season have to be so long?" If the reason is to keep Australia afloat because they don't have a domestic tourney then that serves their interests. Why shouldn't SA also serve their own interests a tad? Shorter SR - not unreasonable. We really don't need home and away. 6 sides - much harder to accommodate I agree but why is6 sides more self serving that the Aus desire for a long Super Season?

+1 The bickering between the SARU, NZRU and ARU is counter productive and is almost destroying Australian Rugby. People in Australia want a domestic comp with home and away games. Domestic competitions rule out nation (a-league nrl and afl) and we need a proper domestic rugby comp.. Save the international stuff for tests and a couple of domestic games. If it keeps going this way, Australian Rugby is over.

It would probably create more interest and excitement in the RC. As stated why should it be an extension of the Currie cup? My gripe is that for all the talk, doesn't sound like there is much compromise going on from SA, just some folk writing articles and using the victim card as a reason for making these changes. I think NZ needs to consider other options to generate revenue if that does become the case, but I assume they will just go along with whatever... A reduction in the number of articles on this matter wouldn't be a bad thing either :-).

Well if it cant be an extention then lets part ways,RC is still there.

more than just Canterbury fronted with almost full teams this year who had played at Super level - but I agree, Canterbury tends to have the better Super players - think I'm right in saying that of their squad the only two who had not played at Super level were the two who ahd played for NZ Sevens . . . spoilt for choice NPC/ITM remains vital though as the step between club and Super - without it, how many players would never be spotted, taking that step out of the picture wouldn't work.