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)
I apologize , this is not well structured, i just tried to get it here fast, after my meal i will fix it , if our great Webmaster did not bail me out.
1 @ superBul:\\
Hello Super,
We have been talking about it on another thread already as there was no article up about it. Think a few of us were talking about this new format on the SR last week teams article.
I have said all I wanted to there just too much to say again….hahahaha. Or will have to copy and paste it here as typing that amount for me is a lot….hahaha.
Catch up tomorrow.
all this to accommodate the Kings, well done SA.
just what the comp needs, another poor Saffa side used as a vehicle to help insure SA get a team in the finals.
they should scrap Super rugby altogether. this is pathetic.
3 @ nga puhi:
Howzit boet. How you doing? Hopewell.
This article came up late a few of us spoke about it on the: SR Review round 11 article.
Most of us are not happy with this new format. Go read there what we had to say about it.
I for one will watch no SR after 2015 as I think it is now a diluted tourney.
@ Puma:
I’ve said for a few years now that SA doesn’t deserve 5 teams in the tourney.
The only way an expansion will be credible is if it is split into a 1st and second division.
It’s been weakened since the S14 started imo.
To those who said yesterday that this format won’t be approved, because the Kiwis will “miss us”, it seems only the broadcasters can stop it now:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/9997792/Conrad-Smith-supports-Super-Rugby-expansion
Tew said the new structure had been approved and confirmed by all Sanzar nations and Argentina following a thorough consultation and negotiation process with national unions, Super Rugby organisations and teams and will now form the basis for negotiations with the competition’s broadcast partners.
And:
Hurricanes captain Conrad Smith has backed the revamped four-conference, 18-team Super Rugby competition which was confirmed by the New Zealand Rugby Union today.
@ nga puhi:
@ kaksioek:
@ Puma:
Proof that it has only ever been Australia that wanted more derbies (despite the spin the Aussies have always put on it):
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/9997858/Fewer-derbies-a-good-thing-says-Richie-McCaw
Richie McCaw likes the idea of fewer local derbies and then did his best to avoid criticising Sanzar’s radical competition revamp for 2016.
All Blacks captain McCaw maintained he knew little about the proposed two division-four conference model that will decrease derbies but will result in three new sides entering the competition which is set to be increased to 18 teams.
While a number of players have previously made it clear they would prefer a simple format that pitted all teams against each other once, McCaw, who has discussed the competition’s future with New Zealand Rugby Players Association boss Rob Nichol, refused to slam Sanzar for the latest complicated concept that doesn’t allow all teams to meet.
Nobody outside of SANZAR (and in reality, few outside the ARU) wanted the existing format, and nobody with any sense wants the proposed format either. It is a complete farkup that appeases SA politicians and the ARU (which would love to see the back of SA, but needs our broadcast money to stay afloat), but certainly not the rugby-watching public.
Pietman wrote:
And Puma.
Sorry guys, slip of my big finger on tiny keyboard!
Yes, I concur with you all.
Let’s have the top 3 teams from each domestic com in NZ, Aussie, SA and the Argies. This is becoming too cumbersome and too much travelling involved etc.
Of course, the TV moguls and sponsors won’t agree, neither would the rugby politicians and referees, a lumpy comp is their bread and butter.
Less derby games would be a win, said McCaw – who may not even play the competition if he retires after next year’s World Cup.
”That is the feedback from the players and I know the South Africans are much the same,” noted McCaw. ”They play twice against the (local) teams and pretty much similar teams play the Currie Cup.
”From a players point of view you want a competition that has got integrity and that one team doesn’t get it easier than others … and that one team isn’t disadvantaged by travel more than others. That’s the challenge from Argentina because there’s only team from over that way they are on the road a fair bit.
”That’s one of the things that has to be weighed up.”
Maybe I should come back later, blogging at work and multi-tasking isn’t my forte, not with this little gadget!
@ kaksioek:
Yip, agree with McCaw 100%.
@ Pietman:
And people like Pooper will tell us we’re getting what we want. No, we are not. The politicians are getting what they want, while Super Rugby goes down the toilet.
@ kaksioek:
Super Rugby will very soon be referred to Mediocre Rugby – that is the direction in which it is heading.
@ IAAS:
I’m going to have to get a hobby or something.
@ kaksioek:
Yeah, it just means there will be more matches that we won’t be watching.
More is not always better. McCaw has got it spot-on and echoes all our sentiments.
I was cool with the Super 12 and also Super 14.
IAAS wrote:
This is nothing but an ‘over sell’. Just look at all those empty yellow seats in Wellington last Saturday at the Canes’ match, and what a great game it was!
But this is just too much rugby, even spectators are getting tired.
SA gets what it wants on two fronts
1) kings ( the supporters of the other franchises don’t really give a toss about that, but it’s political, and since when do politicians care about what the people want?
2) only 2 weeks travel to the Anzacs. The supporters have been crying fowl against the ” unfair” travel we must do since the inception of the competition. So now they get what they want, our teams only p,ay 2 games against either Oz or NZ away, and they must come here for 3 games.
I think from a rugby point of few everyone want less derbies… but commercially derbies are a massive success.
it is almost certain that the coming 2 stoormers vs sharks games will be sell outs. hell if they wanted to organize another game it will still spark more interest than a local vs australian or kiwi side
stuur die kiwis en ausies moar toe maak die currie beker weer die premier rugby kompetiesie in sa met die twee finaliste wat in die heyneken cup speel,maak die rugby championship n bi anual kompetiesie met major toere tussen in, en siedaar vll stadions all over.
@ nortierd:
Bull. Our teams also get to travel to Argentina and another location that could be anywhere in the world (likely Japan).
@ smallies:
@20 Praat
kaksioek wrote:
But they will pick up easy wins, so no one will be complaining
if ever this is a good example of communism vs capitalism…
saru wants to share the pie we get among 6 teams and growth will be at a minumum. hell we are just diluting the pie.
the kiwis and aussies want the competitio to grow financially so they can afford to grow the game.
we need bususiness men to run saru
and another thing. To you guys saying our Rugby will get worse by not paying against the kiwis… Do you even look at the log? How could we possibly get worse? We are going to have about 3 teams in the bottom 4 by the end of this year.
@Macrobull
All that will be happening is a SA side will top their log, be all cock-a-hoop and play their first game against a NZ side in a playoff and come back to earth with a bang
@ smallies:
sonder super rugby gaan al ons springbokke die land verlaat.
@ nortierd:
haha as has has been the case all year… except now we can bs ourselves that we have a competitive format for half the year.
MacroBull wrote:
Hulle verlaat klaar die land met SuperRugby
@ nortierd:
haha ja maar sonder super rugby gaan dit erger wees. ons gaan heel jaar vodacom cup kyk.
Users Online
Total 57 users including 0 member, 57 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,527,905 Page Impressions
_