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 wrote:
Nothing that I could see.
On the nasty Aussie site the Roar, those nasty Aussies say they will rather go alone.
@ MacroBull:
“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.”
Pulver, who was the one to spill the beans earlier than expected, echoed the NZRU boss’ words: “It’s crucial for the long-term success of the Wallabies that we’re playing the best opposition in the world on a regular basis.
I suppose the Aussies are nasty when they say the above, but I believe the best opposition are the NZ sides, so it’s nasty, but true
@ MacroBull:
Sorry, scrap post 62
Supposed to be the following:
Australia and New Zealand believe the Super Rugby revamp will benefit their national teams – the Wallabies and All Blacks.
Both the Aussies and Kiwis reacted positively to the conformation that from 2016 the competition will expand from 15 to 18 teams.
Tew, alongside Australian counterpart Bill Pulver, the CEO of the Australian Rugby Union, believes the re-shaping will be a positive for the All Blacks and Wallabies respectively.
“We also believe we have a competition that will continue to feed a winning All Blacks team,” Tew said.
Pulver, who was the one to spill the beans earlier than expected, echoed the NZRU boss’ words: “It’s crucial for the long-term success of the Wallabies that we’re playing the best opposition in the world on a regular basis.
New Super 18 model professional rugby’s best chance of survival, says Bill Pulver
May 1, 2014 – 11:40PM
Georgina Robinson
Chief Rugby Reporter
Australian Rugby Union boss Bill Pulver has rubbished claims the professional game is at risk of failure and says a controversial four-conference Super 18 model is its best chance of survival.
Amid heated debate about Australia’s involvement in Super Rugby in 2016 and dire predictions about the future of the game, Pulver said the ARU’s cash flow problems would be fixed by the end of next year.
But, speaking as the ARU committed to a new four-conference model for the competition, the under-fire administrator warned that forecast was dependent on extracting maximum income from SANZAR’s new broadcasting agreement, which will be taken to the market in the next fortnight.
“The financial challenges I am trying to deal with are short term … I am confident we will have incremental revenue growth by 2016 onwards as a result of the broadcasting agreement and some other initiatives we have in play,” Pulver said.
“We’re just suffering the short-term environment where $144 million in revenue in 2013 drops to $100 million and then drops to $80 million, and we’ve been losing $5 million to $10 million a year.
“I defy anyone to step into my shoes to fix it. People need to look at the mathematics behind our financial situation. We are fixing it and we’re putting in place some tough measures at the ARU – we have cut that place to the bone.
“But they are measures that will deal with our short-term challenges and there are a series of other initiatives that we have in play. I am trying to share the financial pain evenly across the players, the administrators, the fans and grassroots.”
Pulver’s comments come in response to reports the ARU will exhaust its cash reserves next year if changes are not made, and that professional rugby could be dead in Australia by 2020 without significant reform.
Super Rugby’s governing body, SANZAR, unveiled its agreed 18-team model on Thursday.
A sixth South African franchise – the Southern Kings – will be added to the existing 15 teams, as will an Argentine side and an undetermined 18th side.
SANZAR is putting the 18th team up for tender, with the Australian Rugby Union hoping it is awarded to a team in a big Asian market to increase the broadcast deal.
Australia and New Zealand will stay in their existing five-team conferences, while the six South African sides will be split into two new conferences and joined by an Argentine side and the 18th side respectively.
The new model will see the number of regular season matches increase from 120 to 135, while the finals series will be expanded from six teams to eight. The play-offs – to be held in a sudden-death format over three weeks – will feature five teams from the Australia and New Zealand conferences, and three from the South African-based groups.
The top team from each conference will secure an automatic berth, while one wildcard will be taken from the next top side out of the South African conferences and three wildcards will be handed out to the next three top sides from the Australasian conferences.
Pulver said he secured agreement from the five Australian provincial chief executives at a meeting on Thursday.
After weeks of fierce debate about whether Australia should stay in the competition, it appears the forecast broadcast revenue the ARU took into the meeting was enough to settle the provinces’ concerns.
Before the meeting, Pulver told Fairfax Media suggestions Australia’s interests were better served by either Australia and New Zealand cutting South Africa adrift, or Australia pulling out of Super Rugby entirely, were nonsensical.
“Almost a quarter of our revenue comes from that broadcasting agreement,” he said. “[If] we walk away from it, how is that revenue replaced?
“We don’t even have a domestic competition to run, which is why strategically the National Rugby Championship is actually very important to the long-term structure of the game. You need those strategic pillars in place to even consider those options.
“The game can’t afford to walk away from [the SANZAR] revenue. It can’t. Actually the game needs a lot more revenue in Australia and [the proposed new competition model] is the best path to achieving that.”
Pulver said SANZAR had tested the trans-Tasman conference model, first mooted in August last year, which would see Australia and New Zealand form one conference, and South Africa, Argentina and possibly an Asian team form a second.
“The reality is all three broadcasters from South Africa, New Zealand and Australia said that that competition structure would result in them paying less for the broadcasting rights and realistically that is not the outcome we want,” he said.
“Like [RUPA] we like the idea of playing all within one time zone, but once the broadcasters took that position I don’t think it was a [possible] outcome.”
The ARU has come under fierce criticism that its support for continued South African involvement in the competition was not acting in the national interest.
Pulver rejected these claims.
“In our present financial condition, the revenue outcome is arguably one of the most important results we’re looking for and I have no doubt that this is the best option from a revenue perspective,” he said.
“RUPA is saying ‘walk away from South Africa’. South Africa contribute nearly 50 per cent of the broadcasting revenue. It is an ill-founded idea to say we should walk away from that opportunity.
“When you play the games in Australia and New Zealand you can watch them in the morning in South Africa, whereas when we play games in South Africa we get them at 2am.
“But that has manifested itself in an outstanding amount of broadcasting revenue that comes out of South Africa and that’s one of the key drivers of SANZAR’s financial performance.
“I firmly believe this is the best outcome for the Super Rugby competition structure.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/new-super-18-model-professional-rugbys-best-chance-of-survival-says-bill-pulver-20140501-zr2a6.html#ixzz30TUwJMcz
@ nortierd:
I agree with most, small addition though
NZ/AUS seemed pretty satisfied with the format change, they might have anticipated some troubles if an official quota will be forced by SARU; civil rights groups, Parliament questioning and some pressure on their Unions. There are many ex Saffa there to raise some hell for breaking their own boredom if nothing else 🙂
They also realized a while ago the following:
1. the standards declined, competition is diluted, attendance is down
2. the home referees system only brings tit for tat,
3. Escalating travels cost
4. Dealing with SARU wears them down
With a 20 derby matches in total, supplemented by the CC matches the interest is waning in SR imo
SKY and BT don’t broadcast SR games as much as they did say 5 years ago, spent a weekend in the UK recently and I had to use my laptop to watch the Stormers- Lions game, which wasn’t available on the cable TV!
@Hondo
Not surprising no one wants to show the Stormers or Lions
In 5 years time people will be saying that they miss the Super 15, yet while it’s on they are complaining about missing the Super 14 and while that was on they missed the Super 12 etc etc
They will never please everybody.
The only country that doesn’t really have issues with any format is NZ, because they pretty much win it most of the time and the majority of their sides are always competitive.
The conference system wasn’t for their benefit, it was for ours and the Aussies to ensure that one of our sides at least got a home play off.
Now we will have a guaranteed two sides in the playoffs against their one and it’s still not good enough.
I spoke at length about this on the Review SR round 11 thread.
Anyhow reading this again it annoys me that saru practically sold us down the river again. Here Oz and Nz will play each other 4 times every year where we will only face either 4 Oz or Nz teams every 2nd year. Our rugby will go back in knots for sure if we don’t face the kiwi sides every year like we are doing right now. So when we reach the play offs I can tell you if it is against a kiwi side and we have not faced them all year because we have only played the Aussies we will get a klap right out of the play offs right there. We need to be facing them the whole tourney like we are doing now.
If Australia want a team from Asia to hell with them WE don’t end of story. Let us bring in Sarries or Toulon if they want to join us. We most definitely do not want to play a team from Japan as we can already see when our players head back from there they are no where near the same player when they left SA.
So how I read this is we we actually play more derby games than ever before. If Stormers, Sharks and Bulls are in one pool with Arg or whoever then it dilutes the other pool for sure. We have to play who is in our pool home and and away and all the others in Africa pool 2. So we still have to play all the saffa sides there as well. We have NOT got away from the home and away derby games that none of the players wanted or us the supporters. It is way too much as we see us playing each other twice each in the Currie Cup as it is. This is the worst format ever for SR. Saru are totally clueless about this. I am hugely disappointed and if had known this is how it would turn out would have supported us to go north rather than play in this useless SR that we now land ourselves up in. The way I see it Aus and NZ are the winners here NOT us. Saru are totally useless and so dstv because many of us will not be watching this format when it comes around. Not worth it watching a diluted SR. As it is it is right now we miss two overseas teams. I so much preferred the old format and was hoping we would get something similar. Two pools one in the 1st division and the other in the 2nd division. From 2016 I will be only watching Currie Cup as this new format is useless. Our stadiums will be empty just watch.
Also from what I am reading above the two extra teams added to our conference will be stationed in SA. Anyhow no matter which way you look at it we are the biggest losers here in SA for accepting this absolute dribble format.
66 @ nortierd:
Nortie all our teams would be just as competitive as the kiwi sides IF we distributed the players out amongst the teams evenly. Here a Union could buy all the best players and keep them for themselves. Where the other Unions then have to get the scraps. I think in NZ they do it differently to how we do it here. For example think it was Stormers not sure that were needing some loosies as they had quite a lot of injuries.Sharks were sitting with two sets of Bok loosies in one game. One lot starting and the other on the bench. I doubt that sort of thing happens in NZ those players would be distributed around to different Unions. If we did distribute our players around and not one Union keep the best for themselves we would have 6 really competitive teams. We have the player depth for sure, it is that many of them all land up at one Franchise/Union.
The only hope is that SuperSport says “no thanks” when this rubbish is pitched to them. And that is exactly what should happen, because nobody in SA – apart from Nortierd – wants to watch this.
I think we here in SA had better enjoy what is left of this SR this year and next year as after 2015 it will not be worth watching SR any longer.
nortierd wrote:
Spot on Nortjie!
But what about the FURTHER diluting of the SR?
during the Super 12 or even the Super 14 I hardly missed a game, now it only these involved the top NZ teams, the Brumbies and the SAs Leading 3
where are Skop and Tjaro (?) when we need their venom spewing opinions?
🙂
Just read all these changes to super rugby. How on earth can our rugby get better with the inclusion of an extra (weaker) team from SA and another from Asia and South America. Then I read further that we only play NZ teams every consecutive years… Well we might as well join the Japanese league and at least be a bit more competitive… RIP SA rugby…
69 @ kaksioek:
I hope DSTV do just that and then Saru will have no choice but to negotiate a better format. I doubt it will happen but watch when they lose viewership it might just sink in what a damn mess this format is at the time
What about the SR that has been diluted for 5 years now?
Just asking: would you be watching for instance the Stormers vs the Lions 5 times a season?
Or an Argie domestic team vs the Bulls?
Or a Jep team Vs the Kings? where the revenue is projected to come from?
@ Puma:
But Puma we have been playing these guys for 18 years.
and have you seen us play this year? the guys can’t even pass properly.
How are playing the Kiwis “improving our rugby”?
Also Brussouw is playing his best rugby in years, Jacque Potgieter was also playing in Japan.
As I mentioned earlier, “we” dont want the home and away games? Tell that to the crowd that goes and watches the local derbies compared to the crowds that watch the overseas teams. Traditional rivalry in SA between the bulls, sharks and stormers will never be rivaled by touring sides.
Look I am all for the older formats, preferably the super 14
I agree though this is all SARU’s doing, they wanted six teams, and the Aussies and Kiwis are indirectly telling us to “fok voort op julle eie”
@ Puma:
Is there anyone left in SA with any sense in their heads?
@Puma 68
Yes, their central contracting system does work better, but consider this, one franchise here can buy the best on offer and still mostly come second to their sides where the talent is more evenly spread. Shows how much better they play than us.
@Kaki 69
Woe is me, only Nortie wants to watch this, lol.
I don’t see the point in crying about how unfair it is or how terrible it is, it won’t make a difference.
You will still watch it come 2016, irrispective of what you are saying now.
You can blame the Aussies all you want, but the fact remains that SA demanded 6 teams, yes, demanded, and for years many supporters have been blaming the fact that we must travel for 4 weeks to Aus and NZ, now it’s no longer necessary and they must travel here for 3 to our 2 weeks there.
72 @ Gumboots:
bwaaahahahahah. Joint the Japanese that was funny Bill…..
Well we may as well as our rugby going to go to that level after 2015.
It seems to me Aus is laughing at us as they got exactly what they wanted. Mostly to only play against New Zealand teams and us almost out. Had we known this daft format was coming then should have gone north. I was always one for us to stay with the SH as wanted our teams to play the kiwi sides, as that is what makes our rugby stronger. Now some of our teams will only play the Aussies. Who have in one of their teams so many saffas (The Force) so it will be like playing 7 saffa sides then if we miss the kiwi sides that year. What a total useless format this is.
76 @ kaksioek:
Probably not boet. I am really angry we accepted this rubbish format. Will not watch at all. Now thinking we really should have gone north as we would get better rugby there to play against. If one of our Pools have to miss out the kiwi sides the whole season we not gaining anything from being in SR at all. I want our Sharks to play the kiwi sides every year not every damn 2nd year.
Watch the players are gonna leave in droves after 2015.
68 @ Puma:
Eish Puma, distribute players around mid season?
The Sharks have been extremely lucky with injuries in their front and backrow in the forwards, compared to the other teams, the stormers would kill for 2 sets of loose forwards…
If you look at the players available now with all the injuries, we are lucky to fill our 5 teams with rugby players.
Puma and Kaki, please don’t stop watching after 2015
My heartfelt plea to you
What good is shark baiting on a blog when there are no sharks left here to take the bait?
Please stay
77 @ nortierd:
They only have to travel here for 2 weeks Nortie. Well that is how I read it. We will play 4 Oz or Nz sides and they will play the same here. We play 2 there and they play 2 here. They not going to be here for 3 weeks unless I have read it wrong.
80 @ MacroBull:
If our players were evenly distributed around to each Union we would have much stronger teams at each Union/Franchise.
WE are getting more injured here than the other two countries due to the type of physical game we play and we have to play each other twice. We never had this amount of injuries when we faced each other once in SR.
Puma wrote:
Ok, then it’s the same as us.
I agree that the format sucks, but they will never get a format that suits everyone, unless we go back to the one we all considered the best, the Super 12
But they won’t take teams away as we are demanding even more teams.
We are stuck with this and it will probably keep expanding with time.
I guess we will just get used to it, like we did the 14 and 15
@ nortierd:
Exactly everyone is still going to watch this dribble no matter what they come up with, and dont be surprised when the tournament expands 5 years later SARU will also want to include Griquas or the Pumas in Super rugby.
81 @ nortierd:
We will be here to watch Currie Cup. As it is that new SR will be almost Currie Cup so why bother watching until the real Currie Cup comes along.
Nortie, this will drive the players away. I doubt they want to play in the inferior side of this tourney. Aus and Nz will face each other EVERY year where we will not. Our rugby will go backwards at knots. We now should rather have gone north as we in our two pools would be playing stronger teams there. Especially if we not facing the kiwis every year.
MacroBull wrote:
On the plus side, more SuperBru picks and a chance to get more games right every weekend as opposed to now
If SANZAR lose 2% of the rugby public they absolutely don’t care if they can grow 10%+ in other emerging markets.
It is a business, not a rugby charity.
@ Puma:
I don’t think I am going to watch this either. It’s bad enough as it is now. The tournament is far too long and the standard of rugby is already suffering. It makes me sick that the Aussies have found a way to continue enjoying the golden egg while slowly killing the goose.
86 Puma
The current Boks will in any case be leaving after the 2015 WC
Players can’t just go, there needs to be an offer and the offers only come to certain players.
The overseas sides either want elite players as draw cards, or no name players that couldn’t cut it here.
They can also only field so many foreign players.
Users Online
Total 179 users including 0 member, 179 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,816,612 Page Impressions
_