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)
84 @ nortierd:
What is wrong with 1st division and 2nd division? Top of 2nd gets promoted to 1st every year and the bottom of 1st gets relegated to the 2nd division. We would be playing the very best and the rugby would be of the best quality as well. As every team will want to be in the 1st division. 9 teams in each. That is what I want to see. We will never see lopsided games again either.
@ Puma:
You still haven’t mentioned, HOW our rugby will regress once this new format is in place, how could our rugby get any lower. We have had one good game in SA this year from the Cheetahs and Stormers, they played running rugby but got woefully exploited defensively by the “others”.
How is our rugby improving by playing these okes?
89 @ kaksioek:
That is how I see it. Aus are the winners here not SA or NZ for that matter as they too wanted to play us every year.
Now we sit with a useless format that really no supporters wants from SA or NZ except Oz supporters will be happy to have.
I don’t recall the Aussies bowing down to Cheeky Watson and his Kings.
The only reason there had to be a new format is to accommodate our 6th franchise.
The quality of rugby has been poo.
Puma wrote:
In theory it sounds great and I would love it, but all our teams will demand to be in the top tier as the bottom tier, or second division will have less appeal.
So how do they split it up?
If it’s according to log positions, we will have one side in the 1st division as things are currently standing and SARU won’t like that.
We love the sense of entitlement in SA, so we don’t have business savvy, we demand
86 @ Puma:
Not anywhere in the near future will the North take our demanding entitles SARU, they won’t even consider it.
It is not the Currie Cup, the currie cup is a tournament with lesser teams that get an injection of springboks a week before the playoffs.
89 @ kaksioek:
The tournament is waaaaaaay too long.
92 @ MacroBull:
Well mark my words it will get worse. It is the derby games killing us mate. We are picking up the worse injuries out of any conference because our rugby is just so physical and facing each other twice is madness. I said this before this format started that we would see so many injuries to our players having to face each other twice.
The only way each team would be more competitive is if the players in this country are distributed out evenly. That will not happen as our Unions are run as a business. They all go out to buy the best they can afford and get more than they need. When other Unions are sitting with the scraps. So we will always have two teams on the bottom because of that. Stormers of course have no excuse….
They have some of the best players there but have a lot of injuries, so that could be it.
MacroBull wrote:
If you meant to say poor, then there was one typo that actually made more sense than the intended word
@ nortierd:
And if the competition is tiered, how would a team like the Force feel? last year they were 13th and in the “lower tier”
This year they are currently fourth (third on points).
@ nortierd:
Shit
98 @Puma
The NZ derbies have been every bit as hard, if not more brutal than ours, and the Aussie derbies have been more entertaining than ours.
Our derbies are mostly dour and boring, only the Cheetahs v Stormers match of this last weekend was fun to watch.
96 @ nortierd:
It should have been like that and how the SR ends in 2015 who is sitting where is in the 1st and 2nd division. The two new comers from Arg and whoever else is joining has to start in 2nd division.
It could have worked. Even if my team is sitting in 2nd division there we would be playing SOME kiwi sides every year. We would want to watch and hoping our side makes it to 1st. It would be a very exciting tourney to watch. Every team would up their game no matter which division they playing in. Would have been a terrific format. Stadiums would be full as we would never see lopsided games again.
@MB
Hell, 3 years ago we were 1st, now we are basement dwellers.
The log position and conference cup don’t mean diddly squat, ask us Stormers
@ Puma:
But Puma commercially it is a success, can you deny this?
Last year the bulls vs Stormers game at newlands was sold out in a few hours.
It was the second game they played and also the final game of the season, they bulls had already won the conference and the Stormers had nothing to gain…
Then a few weeks later I think the currie cup game was also a sell out.
#94 @ nortierd:
As I have pointed out numerous times, you are lying when you say that the format was changed only to accommodate a 6th SA team. The ARU was under immense pressure because they were facing bankruptcy and their spectators are not interested in watching games featuring SA teams. They believe they will be able to get more money from Newscorp for this new format that minimizes their exposure to SA, thereby keeping the ship afloat.
102 @ nortierd:
Stormers and Cheetahs game last week was terrific to watch. Then both teams had nothing to lose so could go for it. Anyhow still a great game to watch.
Puma wrote:
Yep, but you will have the top 1 or 2 sides fromm the 2nd division maybe playing relegation against the bottom 2 sides from the 1st division, that means more games.
Or just an automatic switch between those two sides?
Fact remains, most sides will forever languish in the 2nd division and never play the Crusaders, Chiefs, Brumbies etc. ever again
@ nortierd:
and we cant use the european cup system of pools, the travel makes this impossible, how do you decide who gets a home final?
Like Heineken cup the venue has to be predetermined.
If by some miracle the stormers play the sharks in a final in wellington…who is going to give a hoot about it?
103 @ Puma:
The funny thing is, if you consider how volatile the competition is, The Tier 2 winners could well beat the tier 1 winners.
kaksioek wrote:
So SARU didn’t demand a 6th side?
Sorry, my mistake, I thought we wanted the Kings in SR.
Bleddie Aussies, can’t believe how they shafted us.
106 @ kaksioek:
You are 100% correct there. However, the Aussies will say it was because of us it changed just to suite them somehow. Australia got exactly what they wanted. They laughing all the way how stupid we are. We bring more money to the table and strings to pull and we go in with our tales between our legs and negotiate a useless format for ourselves.
112 @ Puma:
tales = tails.
@Puma 112
SARU has managed to up our playoff sides from a guaranteed one team to a guaranteed two sides.
They will claim that as a victory
@ kaksioek:
The Aussies and Kiwis want to grow the tournament, get more money so we can keep our players, there is a massive kiwi exodus currently happening, this can only be prohibited by a working business model that grows the market..
A sixth SA team does not grow the market, it just dilutes the pool of money SARU gets.
It is absolutely VITAL we grow the market, for the Aussies as well as for ourselves.
108 @ nortierd:
Well that would mean whoever is in the 2nd division deserves to stay there and play against their strength. That is how it would normally work in the real world.
I want to see strength against strength. Not one sided games.
This was not a good year for us to negotiate anything.
The Aussies have 3 sides in the better half of the log, NZ, well, they are always mostly up there and SA, 1 side in the top.
Guess which country couldn’t say much from a rugby playing perspective?
@ nortierd:
You no read good. I tired. Stop trying.
@ nortierd:
Lol we are already in the second tier, that’s why they are giving south africa our own conference.
114 @ nortierd:
Well I need to go and read that again. As never read that in both our pools one from each will have a play off game. I bet they will say both Africa 1 and 2 must play each other in that play off game. We still have not seen the whole of it yet. Wait until they say exactly what this format is. We just may have a bit of another shock.
I dearly hope we can at least choice the OTHER team and not get one from Japan. Ag, who cares really this tourney is over for me after next year. Not interested. Currie Cup will be more interesting form Nortie.
Users Online
Total 58 users including 0 member, 58 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,527,571 Page Impressions
_