The realistic chance of boasting three finals sides each season has been hailed as the big win for Australia in a restructured 18-team Super Rugby competition.
Governing body SANZAR took Australia’s five franchises by surprise on Thursday when they rolled out the controversial new-look model set to kick off in 2016.
While ARU boss Bill Pulver revealed most of the competition’s details to AAP on Wednesday, he’d said an announcement was likely within the next fortnight.
Leading provincial officials went into Thursday’s chief executives meeting looking to thrash out concerns with plans to add a second South African-based conference with the inclusion of three new teams.
But their meeting was only half completed when news broke in New Zealand that SANZAR was ploughing ahead with the expansion model to go forward to crucial broadcast rights negotiations.
Pulver stressed chief executives from NSW, Queensland, the Brumbies, Rebels and Western Force shared a consensus view the four-conference competition was the best way forward for Australia in reaping the biggest and best broadcast deal possible.
“There’s a real feeling of comfort that this model will give a real positive outcome for us,” he said.
While South Africa got their way from the outset with the reinstatement of the Southern Kings, Pulver said Australia’s victory was the increase in the finals series from six teams to eight.
The sudden-death play-offs are set down over three weeks where each conference winner will host a quarter-final and three of the four wildcards will come from Australia and New Zealand.
Australia – who have only boasted eight finals teams in the past nine seasons, and only twice (2011 and 2013) had two – can now be virtually guaranteed of at least two each year.
“The issue we pushed really hard on was the finals series because sadly the least represented conference in the finals has been Australia,” Pulver said.
“That was something they (South Africa and New Zealand) were willing to compromise on.”
An Argentine side and an 18th franchise, to be put up to tender, will be placed in the two four-team South African divisions.
The ARU is gunning for a big Asian market – either Singapore or Japan – to gain the final licence while Pulver said they were staunchly opposed to a seventh South African team.
He revealed broadcasters were opposed to initial plans to split up the Australasian and South African groups and only bring them together for finals.
That was the model Australia’s teams preferred and incumbent Wallabies skipper Ben Mowen also hoped for before Thursday’s announcement.
“Just to reduce the travel,” Mowen said. “It takes a huge toll on guys as athletes and on families.”
Pulver has been in talks with commercial Australian networks for 12 months and is expecting “serious competitive tension” to drive the broadcast deal.
Channel 10 has reportedly shown most free-to-air interest and the ARU is hopeful of a Big Bash cricket-like boost to the domestic market.
BL
Guest
Folks What about a Franchise from Oceania ? - play home matches and have a home base out of South Auckland - either Growers Stadium or Mt Smart Stadium as HQ
DJW
Guest
I think that has to be the long term strategy. To have a stand alone strong national comp. The top few going into a Heinken cup style comp with teams from NZ, SA etc. Unfortunatly at the moment there finance isn't there for Australia to go it on there own. The big question is will it always stay a long term strategy and never fruitition into reality. South Africa pretty much have two Currie Cups now with new format. I am not South African so I don't know how strong the publics connection is with the current Currie Cup and whether the new Super format or Currie cup will suffer as a result of the duplication/saturation.
JimmyC
Guest
Ditch SA and include two teams from Japan, one each from Tonga, Samoa and Fiji. Additional cash to come via Japanese market and the IRB for expanding the game. Play the conference model (but actually play everyone not 4/5). Keep the TRC for internationals.
sheek
Roar Guru
I'm sorry, but from an Aussie point of view, this doesn't wash with me at all. Sure, the diehards will watch this expanded super rugby. They always do. But the problem for Australian rugby is that their diehards make up a miniscule proportion of the overall sporting population. However, the overwhelming majority of Aussie sports fans couldn't give a toss about super rugby, or rugby in general. I've always believed, & continue to believe, that Australian rugby must have a decent domestic comp to put up against the AFL, NRL & AL. The proposed NRC sadly won't cut it. The five trumps - Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Rebels & Force - need to be seen playing in Australia every weekend. Domestic product is king, domestic content is king. Expanding super rugby across the globe might give the ARU financial breathing space, but it won't ingrain rugby union within Australia anymore than its already tenuous hold today. Anyway, that's what I believe, & I've believed this for a long time now.
sheek
Roar Guru
BB, One of the advantages of being an Aussie, is this: if one of the footy codes displeases me for whatever reasons, I have another three I can turn my attention towards. Rugby union is/was my first love, but I shake my head at the direction the game is going in the southern hemisphere. This season I have rekindled my connection with Australian football. It has the best depth of athletic talent in Australia. I continue to enjoy rugby league, despite the fact it is shrinking everywhere but NSW-Qld. Meanwhile, soccer has its grand final this weekend after another season of building itself into the sporting psyche. SANZAR has lost the plot, while Australian rugby clutches at straws.
44bottles
Guest
Yeh. Either them or a combined rest of africa XV (could put in places like Namibia and such). Though I'm not sure how financially feasible it would be for the Africa XV
Michael
Guest
I think that the 18th team will be Kenya given to them playing Sevens and Vodacom Cup this year with their Simba XV team. The travel wouldn't be so severe and the time won't be so harsh.
Eddard
Roar Guru
Why are you so against it BB? South Africa got everything they wanted. 6 teams (possibly a 7th and the Argie team will likely play some 'home' games in SA too), less travel, round robin games against NZ and Oz teams. And they'll almost certainly be 2 South African teams with home quarter finals every year.
Wii
Guest
If you ask me personally I feel South African rugby will suffer greatly here. Sure financially they may do ok out f due to the huge population base although I'm still amazed at the amount of money the can generate considering the rand is barely worth the paper it's printed on. Anyway I digress, the South African sides will no longer be exposed to as many matches against the ANZAC sides and therefore their rugby will suffer. Let's look at this year for example both the NZ and OZ conferences have been extremely competitive yet the SA sides are languishing at the bottom end if the table, the quality of rugby coming out f South Africa this season is poor and without the regular exposure to the ANZAC teams I believe it will suffer more. There is an intricate and intense rivalry between the two Trans Tasman neighbours that the SA sides just do not bring (do note test rugby is a different story). Kiwis and Aussies alike just love to get the one up on each other and with this new format with each side from NZ and AUS now playing every team from the other conference it will only IMO increase the competitiveness and maintain the high intensity of these teams. Lastly the cynical me thinks Pulver and Tew may not be as silly as we think with this new deal I think they are testing the waters as basically we are getting a TT competition if the demand is there I think we may see the TT come into fruition and SA may be forced to go it alone.
Carvin
Guest
I'm going to go against the grain here and say this is the best possible outcome given SA insistence in 6 franchises. Aus a winner with increased NZ games and half of the Aus/NZ teams guaranteed a spot in the finals. Which means if Aus don't have at least 2.teams in the finals, they're not good enough no matter which way you look at it. No more travel than now for Aus/NZ teams with 2 games against SA conf, and all teams still get some exposure to SA rugby. SA seems the worse off out of it all, but they get they're demand of 6th team and guaranteed 2 finalists (and I'm assuming 2 home finals). I think best that could have been done given the circumstances. Would rather have seen it stay as it was though, but who knows how the Argies/Asian teams will go?
Well that's it, I am done with Super Rugby, they can take their new format and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Eddard
Roar Guru
The 1st seed is likely to be one of the stronger South African teams every year. The Sharks could end up in a pool along the lines of: Sharks, Lions, Kings, Dubai Daredevils (or whoever Team 18 end up being) So a nice 30 points for them there.
paul craggie
Guest
Can one book online for the 8 vs 1 quarter final. Can't imagine too many seats will be available for that one. Maybe they will have a ballot. If team 8 remarkably made the final can anyone tell me what frequent flyer status they would reach ? George Clooney would be impressed no doubt.
Sportym
Guest
Australia can get four teams into the finals in the current format. One needs to win the conference the other three take the wildcard slots.... At the end of the day, I wan to see the best teams in the finals, not slots given away!