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:
If you think this will end well, I admire your optimism.
120 @ Puma:
3 teams qualify for the quarter finals vs 5 aus/kiwi teams.
Okay I am out of here gents. Still have to put in my Bru picks. Painters in my study tomorrow. Well think they will make it to this part of the house….
Then everything comes out and no adsl.
Okay off to put my picks in for what it is worth as am useless at this. Had Stormers and Bulls last week and both let me down as did my Sharks. Still going with all 3 again tomorrow….
🙂
Cheers everyone.
GO SHARKS…. 🙂 That was just for you Nortie… hehehe.
😆
120 @ Puma:
You mean you are going to watch the glorified vodacom cup? 😛
kaksioek wrote:
I see what you are saying, but not once have you been willing to concede that SA and their sense of entitlement with the Kings are also to blame.
You want to pin it all on those bad Aussies.
It’s not their fault if they have a CEO who actually is good in his job is it?
If the Kings didn’t have to be accommodated there would not have been a need to change the format. We demanded the change, they made the change work for them
124 @ MacroBull:
@Puma 123
Lol, goooo Rebels
@ kaksioek:
The thing is that i am not in favoring this new format, I am just a bit apathetic about it.
The facts are, SARU has been extremely demanding, people cry about the dreadful 4 week tours, we complain about not having a sixth team, government needs to be kept happy as well.
My point is just that, people are looking at the Aussies as those evil bastards, but us playing a sixth team is the most dreadful decision in the future of our rugby ever.
@ nortierd:
Kak man. I have said SARU are part of the problem from the very beginning. You just want to pretend that they are solely to blame. Whatever floats your boat.
and the Aussies have done well to accomodate that, they even entertained us when we wanted to make a dumbass decision by trying to include a South African team into the aussie conference…wtf
there are four facts in super rugby.
1. We dont have as much talent coming through the ranks as we want to believe.
2. The Stormers backline is not as good they their supporters want to believe.
3. The sharks play skop and jaag rugby
4. financially the conference system playign each other twice works.
MacroBull wrote:
More than just accommodating MB, they are even kind enough to teach them basic rugby skills.
Really fine and upstanding citizens those Aussies.
With some luck they will take in some of our cricketers next
And south africas proposals have not been better either, there was one a few years ago where saru wanted 6 teams in our conference, and we had to start two weeks before the other teams.
MacroBull wrote:
Hey, about your point nr 2……..ag, forget it.
@ nortierd:
What it will all come down to is that sanzar will have to include a third tier for the stormers, boland and tonga.
I kid, i kid, the bulls and the lions will probably join you while the Japanese teams overtake us.
SARU is a reflection of the society it is part of. It is full of people who have no business running a shebeen, let alone a rugby union. They also have a chip on their shoulder and rely on the support of a government that is equally inept. So they make their laughable political demands and try to impose quotas on an international competition that is supported by international broadcast deals in a world that doesn’t care about affirmative action. They do this in competition with unions like the ARU that are run by people who had to make all manner of cut-throat deals just for the right to work there. The result is that they get their pants pulled down and their backsides kicked and still leave the room feeling like winners. I wouldn’t mind so much if it didn’t affect a sport that I enjoy supporting – but it does, so I do.
@MacroBull
Strange thing is, they are clamoring for an Argie team and a Japanese or North American team, but no mention of a Pacific Island team. No break for them again, but I suppose the NZ and Aus sides want their players for themselves
kaksioek wrote:
Could not have said it any better.
@Kaki 137
Spot on and I agree 100%
And like Goverment, they don’t give a toss about what the people, or in this case, the supporters want.
Hence I am not going to get worked up about it too much because it matter an iota whether I do or don’t.
@ nortierd:
Well like i said rugby is not a charity, there is nothing to gain from those teams, if SARU ran those unions though they would fight to include samoa, tonga, fiji, tasmania, cook islands etc…
SANZAR needs more money to keep our best players.
Then again, SARU is not really fighting to include teams like Namibia either
137 @ kaksioek:
Well said boet. As that is the truth whether some want to ignore and not
believe it what you said there, it is exactly true.
Also listening to Boots last night. Really does Roux think us supporters are that stupid to believe we got the best deal? We all know we never and Australia are the winner here. And that spineless Skinstad nodding his head agreeing to everything left me speechless. We needed Mallett and John Robbie in the studio last night as they would have said straight back to Roux how we got shafted in a raw deal here.
So our extra team could come from Spain, USA, Namibia, Kenya or Dubai … REALLY?
Our extra team then may as well come from One of our Vodacom sides as they better than any of those they are suggesting.
Our Rugby is going to go back at such a fast speed. Maybe one of the big Unions should just break away and go it alone in the north. That would send a clear message what a stuff up this new format is for our rugby. Just give saru the big finger and go it alone in a better tourney for their team and supporters. I would not be surprised if that does happen.
@ Puma:
Lets look at attendance figures this year: (A) is a foreign team and (H) is a south african team
Crowd average for home teams
Sharks: (H) 34.600
(A) 22.700
(H) 28.100
(A) 26.800
(A) 32.700
(H) 34.600
(A) 22.300
Average vs (H) teams is 34 400/game vs (A) teams is 26 100/game
Cheetahs: (H) 18.600
(H) 24.200
(A) 15.000
(A) 15.000
Average vs (H) teams is 21 400/game vs (A) teams is 26 100/game
Lions: (H) 39.500
(A) 17.800
(A) 20.800
(A) 20.000
(H) 49.000
Average vs (H) teams is 44 300/game vs (A) teams is 19 500/game
Stormers (A) 31.800
(A) 25.300
(H) 28.400
Average vs (H) teams is 22800/game vs (A) teams is 28 600/game
(Arguably not a good statistical size)
Bulls (H) 23.600
(A) 17.900
(H) 48.700
(A) 24.100
Average vs (H) teams is 36 200/game vs (A) teams is 21 000/game
*Cheetahs: (H) 18.600
(H) 24.200
(A) 15.000
(A) 15.000
Average vs (H) teams is 21 400/game vs (A) teams is 15 000/game
Users Online
Total 173 users including 0 member, 173 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,338,437 Page Impressions
_