Super Rugby is poised to move forward with a four-conference model in 2016 – with two based in South Africa.
Australian Rugby Union boss Bill Pulver has revealed the announcement of an expanded and restructured model to take to broadcasters is only a fortnight away.
On the eve of an important meeting with provincial chief executives, Pulver has backed a Super 18 model for 2016 where Australian and New Zealand conferences would remain the same.
Australia’s five teams would play two less “local derby” matches in a 15-game regular season but would strengthen their Anzac ties by increasing their four matches against Kiwi rivals to five.
Significant changes will be made in South Africa with their six teams, including the recalled Southern Kings, put in two pools with a new Argentine team and a final side, which the ARU hopes will be based in the Asian market.
Those two four-team conferences – including an overseas expansion team in each – will only face one of the two Australasian conferences each year, which reduces fears of an increase in travel.
“It’s likely to be a four-conference model and this will be finalised in the next couple of weeks to be announced,” Pulver said today.
While the ARU chief executive is supporting SANZAR’s in-principle expansion plans, they’re unlikely to be applauded by his provincial counterparts.
Pulver has been under pressure from the franchises and the players’ association to pull Australia out of South Africa-driven plans to increase Super Rugby from 15 teams to 17 or 18.
Political pressure for more black participation saw SARU demand the Port Elizabeth-based Kings, who were relegated last season, be reinstated for good.
With South Africa providing almost half of the broadcast revenue, governing body SANZAR has listened to their powerful voice, and New Zealand are opposed to breaking the partnership.
Plans for less local derbies in Australia – dropping from eight to six, and meaning one less home game every second year – has upset state officials who believe it will see them go bust.
Pulver said he understood the concerns but backed the proposed changes as the best model to improve the competition and importantly boost broadcasting revenue.
“I’m more than happy to go along with it,” he said. “I think it will be a terrific structure for the game.”
Queensland Rugby Union chief executive Jim Carmichael hoped Australian officials remained open-minded about expansion plans to ensure the best result for the cash-strapped code.
“We don’t have a preferred model, as yet. We have a preferred position, and that is not to prejudice Australian interests in the competition moving forward,” Carmichael said.
“I’m okay to come to the table and hear alternative views as long as we are able to review those and ensure it ultimately delivers for Australian rugby.”
While the Reds, NSW Waratahs and Brumbies are unhappy about the loss of derby matches, Pulver said less was more for the Melbourne Rebels and Western Force.
“In Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra they work very well,” he said. “In Melbourne and Perth those two franchises aren’t too excited in home derbies.”
Speaking after the 122nd AGM in Wellington, New Zealand Rugby Union chief executive Steve Tew was tightlipped on anything to do with changes to the competition.
SANZAR’S PROPOSED MODEL FOR 2016:
Teams: 18 – Current 15 plus Southern Kings (RSA), Argentine team, plus 1 more
Conferences: 4 – Australia (5 teams), New Zealand (5), two based in South African (4 each, including one expansion team)
Matches: 15 per team
For Australia & New Zealand’s 5 teams each:
Local derbies: 6 – Play each other once plus two rivals twice
Trans-Tasman games: 5 – Against all Kiwi rivals
South African games: 4 – Against one of the two SA conferences
(* SA teams alternate yearly in opposing Australia or New Zealand conferences)
@ MacroBull:
@ MacroBull:
maklik slegs plaaslike spelers kwalifiseer vir die bok span
@ MacroBull:
Ons brag nou al hoeveel jaar dat ons die beste diepte het, die beste juniors het, die beste skool spelers het, so nou moet SA maar ” put up or shut up”
@ smallies:
Op die jaar se SR form gaan n Bok span maar sukkel sonder Habana, Fourie, Du Preez en n ordentlike loskakel soos Steyn
@ nortierd:
dis omdat hulle weet hulle gaan gekies word al speel hulle daar dat hulle gaan,as hulle weet hulle gaan nie gekies word nie …….
@ nortierd:
haha beste diepte. en die ouens se ons rugby gaan verswak maar na 20 jaar saam met die ouens speel was ons skills nog nooit so swak nie.
smallies wrote:
Dit is seker so, maar ons kan nie naastenby kompeterend wees sonder ons beste spelers nie. Die huidige spul wat SR speel is definitief nie goed genoeg in sleutel posisies nie
@ MacroBull:
Kwantiteit teenoor kwaliteit
@ smallies:
smallies. ons kak kom want die meerderheid van ons mense sien rugby as die sport van skooltyd en 20 jaar terug se club rugby…
rugby is n beroep dit is n werk soos enige ander moderne beroep…
ek is nou 28 jaar oud. as iemand my n werk aanbied en n beter geleenthede of dit nou rugby of ingeneurswese is maak dit nie saak nie. ek sal dit sterk oorweeg… meestal vir myself en my toekoms en my familie sin.
en die skool kinders is nie dom nie. as hier nie geld is nie dan hoekom gaan hulle hier bly?
ek hulle weet ook al toekomstige springbokke word al geoormerk van 15 of 16 af die meeste van die tyd.
MacroBull wrote:
Feite
As jy op 15 jarige ouderdom nog nie n kontrak by die Bulls of Sharks se scouts gekry het nie, kan jy maar ophou speel of oorsee gaan
@ MacroBull:
stem nie saam nie,all blacks het n streng home player beleid….hou daar by en as hy wil gaan laat hy gaan ons skole stelsel is sterk daar sal altyd laaities deur kom
how farking stupid are saru…? and nzru and aru…?
how can jurie believe this is a good idea and is what the rugby public wants…? do jurie and greg peters ever leave their ivory towers long enough to actually hear what fans are saying… and yes… the voice of the fans is vital because without fans you don’t have a marketable product…
for sa to have two smaller conferences is just plain wrong… new zealand and aus will not be happy and who can blame them…
yes… I’ve always wanted sa to be more assertive so that at least ensure we don’t always end up sucking the hind tit… but to go the other way and force this abomination upon our three rugby loving countries is just as bad as India, Aus and England forcing their agendas on world cricket…
this is just wrong… i’m embarrassed to be a south african rugby supporter…
@UFO
Look on the bright side
From 2016 we Stormers can at least say we are 4th in our pool instead of having to say we are 15th on the log
@ smallies:
@ smallies:
die all blacks het die laaste 18 jaar net 5 spanne gespeel, die kompetisie het gegroei en met die extra geld kan hulle hul spanne finansier. suid africa het nou al twee extra spanne sowel as die aussies wat die geld moet deel. dit is hoekom ons sukkel. ons is dom hulle dink vooruit. hulle besef hulle het net soveel spelers.
terwyl die aussies die game wil versprei tot die res van land.
kry ons swaer met n extra span wat glad nie die kykersmark sal vergroot nie.
@ ufo:
Oh don’t worry, the Aussies got what they want – a Trans-Tasman competition while we play Currie Cup 2.0 with the addition of arduous trips to Argentina and (probably) Japan.
43 @ nortierd:
@ kaksioek:
How can one game in Argentina or Japan against second rate opposition be considered difficult compared to 4 weeks against 2 NZ and 2 Aus teams?
45 @ kaksioek:
i still believe we should go back to a 9 team (max 12 team) comp… even if it means stormers losing out…
problem with SA rugby is there is no accountability or incentive to perform well… it never matters if our teams finish at the bottom of the log every year… they still get their broadcast income and hit th ere pet button for next year…
selecting the top three (or four) SA sides to compete will force the franchises to manage and perform more professionally because losing out will have big financial penalties…
it’s time to force the other teams to adopt the high level professionalism and excellence john smit has brought to the sharks…
and hit the repeat button for next year…! 😳
@ nortierd:
It’s not difficult in terms of the standard of rugby – it’s a farking waste of time. The travel is difficult, though. Instead of travelling to Australia and New Zealand (which are pretty close together) our teams are now travelling to Australia or New Zealand and Japan and Argentina (these last two are not close to the first two). Is it really difficult to understand or are you just being obtuse?
@ ufo:
The last time this competition made sense was when it was the Super 12. Unfortunately, that wasn’t enough to keep the ARU afloat. There were articles in the Australian media in recent weeks about how they were about to go bankrupt. That’s why they keep pushing for more expansion. Combine that with the situation in which our politicians “demand” (in typical fashion) transformation and a 6th team and we are all going to hell in a bucket. Super Rugby is no longer sustainable. We need to pack it in. Let the Aussies and Kiwis have the competition they want – which doesn’t include us. We have to try and work things out with Europe.
@ kaksioek:
Must be obtuse
After reading and hearing for years on end how our teams are being shafted and thats why we never win ( except the Bulls who didn’t choke when they were a decent side ) because we need to travel for 4 weeks to the Anzac countries, now a format where this isn’t going to happen is also wrong.
What difference does bitching about what SANZAR decides make? They don’t give a shit about what people are saying and know they will never be able to please everybody. SA is the cause for this stuff up with our insistence of getting the Kings into the tournament, so we should just accept that we have to accept the format because we are to blame for it.
51 @ kaksioek:
Well… with Aus getting their own domestic comp as reported earlier… maybe the model could still work…
It would be a pity to see Super Rugby go… but the fact is that right now it is only very Ordinary Rugby… and if we can’t bring the Super back… well then… maybe canning it and starting over is the way to go…
I reckon having a Super 9 or Super 112 would help both SA and Aus put our more competitive teams and do better against New Zealand and each other…!!
Anyway… that’s all pie in the sky… what we’re left with now… is pie in the face of SA rugby… IMO…
Great pity…
gotta get gone…
@ nortierd:
Don’t pretend this is all SARU’s doing – it isn’t. The ARU was desperate for expansion into Asia, more games against New Zealand and fewer games against us – and that’s exactly what they got.
@ ufo:
“having a Super 9 or Super 112”
Don’t worry bud, give it a year or 2 and we be having a super 112
@ ufo:
Not even the Aussies think their domestic competition will last.
and to makr it worse. We have lost our no.1 test ranking to Australia.
“The agreed design satisfies the needs of South African rugby, which was built around a number of key principles from SARU’s perspective.”
The key principles agreed upon include:
*The inclusion of a sixth South African team.
*No increase or a reduction in the travel burden on South African players.
*A reduction in the number of derbies.
*The inclusion of a team from Argentina.
*Financial uplift.
Having reached an agreement that benefits South Africa in the re-shape, Roux was happy with the exciting changes.
“The agreed format delivers on a reduction in the historic travel burden on our players as well as answering our need for a sixth place in the competition,” said Roux.
“We are delighted to welcome a new entrant from our old friends, Argentina, and there is also a reduction in the number of South African derbies, which are seen as being particularly attritional on our players.
“It was a long hard, negotiation with a large number of alternative formats considered and discarded because they did not fulfil the key criteria. This new model offers a major new step forward for Super Rugby with the potential to grow further.”
@ nortierd:
Nothing there about the evil baddie Aussies conspiring against us?
Users Online
Total 139 users including 0 member, 139 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,339,350 Page Impressions
_