Air NZ Cup to remain as 14 teams

Discussion in 'ITM (NPC) Cup' started by Candyman, Dec 10, 2009.

  1. Candyman

    Candyman Guest

    Air NZ Cup to remain 14 teams
    Yahoo!Xtra Sport - December 11, 2009, 11:05 am

    The New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) Board has decided to maintain the current 14-team premier competition and 12-team Heartland Championship in the same formats as the 2009 season for 2010.

    Competition formats and other key matters remain subject to the collective bargaining process currently underway with the New Zealand Rugby Players' Association and, as a result, the NZRU Board has accepted the need to give Provincial Unions, their players, sponsors and fans some certainty as to their playing future next year.

    The fact that several Provincial Unions had lodged appeals and threatened other legal action which had the potential to delay the confirmation of competition formats for 2010 was also a factor in the Board's deliberations.

    The decision was based on a recommendation from NZRU Management to maintain the status quo for 2010 and follows several months of consultation, research and negotiations on the mechanisms required to make the new competition format viable.

    NZRU Chairman Jock Hobbs said the Board and Management agreed that despite the significant amount of progress that had been made to identify and develop the 10-6-10 competition, the current collective employment negotiations taking place and other factors meant the proposed competition could not go ahead in 2010.

    "A number of factors have changed since the Board made its decisions in June and July. These include the fact that competition formats have become a fundamental part of the collective employment negotiations currently underway, the fact that we have appeals lodged by the Tasman and Counties-Manukau Rugby Unions and threatened legal action from other Unions.

    "All of these matters were not likely to be resolved prior to the first quarter of 2010, and with outcomes uncertain and the need to create certainty for Provincial Unions and teams, it was not possible to go ahead with the new format in 2010."

    A number of Provincial Unions had also made submissions to the NZRU which, in some cases, indicated a change in their position on the proposed changes or at least the timing of those changes, he said.

    The Board's previous decision on the format of the domestic competitions in 2011 and 2012 remains as a 10-6-10 format at this time.

    This will be subject to continued negotiations with the NZRPA and the NZRU will be seeking to secure an affordable and sustainable player payment model and salary cap as key outcomes of collective bargaining. The format will also be discussed further with Provincial Unions.

    In announcing the decision, Mr Hobbs and NZRU CEO Steve Tew noted that the initial impetus for changes to domestic competitions came from the nine non-Franchise Host Provincial Unions which collectively requested urgent intervention from the NZRU in April.

    Mr Tew said the NZRU was focused on finalising a new collective employment agreement with the NZRPA, which will be critical to determining the costs for Provincial Unions and competitions in the next three years.

    "Like all those involved in rugby, we have been greatly encouraged by the public's reaction to the Air New Zealand Cup in 2009. The strong growth in television audiences and the visibility of the competition were hugely positive. Together with our Provincial Unions we now need to figure out how we can harness that interest and support in 2010 and beyond to sustain those teams and these vital competitions over the longer term," Mr Tew said.

    A meeting of all 14 Premier Division Provincial Unions CEOs and the CEOs of Wanganui and Mid-Canterbury was held in Wellington today to further discuss these issues.
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. feicarsinn

    feicarsinn Guest

    Hussah! A victory for New Zealand rugby and a kick in the teeth for the NZRU(which is no bad thing). I'm quite happy about this.
     
  4. Candyman

    Candyman Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Dec 11 2009, 12:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

    Damn Straight!!
     
  5. wjd23104

    wjd23104 Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Candyman @ Dec 11 2009, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

    Damn Straight!!
    [/b][/quote]
    Its only a stay of execution and what happens if the NZRU decides Southland should be dropped when they inevitably decide in 2011 that teams have to be cut.
    I say this because last year it was going to be Tasman and Northland getting the boot, and because of legal challenges and the fact that the idiots in charge of other teams close to being dropped (Manawatu,Counties) didn't back the NZRU they (Manawatu and Counties) almost ended up joining them this year.

    The current set-up is a financial nightmare and something will have to be done eventually, unfortunately some unions will suffer. But look at Hawkes Bay as an example of a promoted union that gave the NZRU no reason to drop them. They are making money and punching above their weight on the field. Unions like Tasman
    have done themselves no favours with very poor administration.
     
  6. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest

    The only sensible decision possible.

    How could the NZRU have called the Air NZ Cup a National Rugby Championship after they would have disenfranchised over a quarter of the population. Yes, the current setup is a financial disaster, but that is what needs to be addressed, not the number of teams.

    For example, WHY are the National Unions paying the salaries of All Blacks that hardly ever play for them, and even when they are made available, should they be allowed to swan off to Europe on a sponsor's junket instead (a la Tony Woodcock et al).

    All Blacks should only be paid by their Super 14 franchise and the NZRU. They should not get a salary from their Provincial Union, and instead, should be paid a fixed match fee set by the NZRU on a per appearance basis.

    Also, the salary cap needs to be a lot lower. Of course the Canterburys and the Wellingtons of this world will hate the idea as they would find they might have to give up some of the players they have poached off smaller unions. Instead of a salary cap, another idea I have heard mooted is for each player to be ranked in their position using a points system, from 1 to 10. The higher the value of the player, the higher their points value. You then place a restriction on the total number of player points allowed on the field at any one time. Then the teams can play the players whatever they like, but they will will not be also to buy up all the good players, because there will be no way they are able to play them.


    Tewbacca must go. Somehow this Teflon Don has survived a number of NZRU disasters going right back to the 2003 RWC sub-hosting debacle. The rugby public no longer have any confidence in him, time for him to fall on his sword!!
     
  7. C A Iversen

    C A Iversen Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Dec 11 2009, 09:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    He was today lauded by Jock Hobbs and the board for being extremely well suited to the job, for being the man with the skills necessary and that there's no-one better etc, etc. I believe Jock Hobbs is a very intelligent and astute man with a fine sense of ideals. The problem is though, being intelligent, astute and having fine ideals does not mean you are always right.

    I think he and the rest of the board have a lot on their plate leading into the world cup. A lot that Tew is tied to. They can't afford to cut him out now, or the IRB will wonder how sound the rest of the foundations of our house of cards is.

    Tew has proven to have shown no clear leadership, consultation or understanding in regard to New Zealand as a whole. He only showed real caring for what he saw as the "juicy money" sections. You cannot turn a blind eye to a large slice of the country and think they'll still pay for your product or complain.


    There are ways around this. People are not going to complain if the All Blacks don't play in the ANZC, they are almost used to it now. Why don't they just not permit them to play unless they decide they want to play for just a match fee? Allow those All Blacks to show how much they really love their tiny country, that they've milked for adulation for the few ANZC games they might actually play?

    Also, the NZRFU must allow these unions more sponsorship (non-super 14 affiliated). Here he was complaining a few months ago about how broke they were, but didn't want any big name companies buying them out of trouble?

    The guys an intelligent man who occasionally gets tunnel vision, and thats dangerous.
     
  8. candybum

    candybum Guest

    So when it comes to dropping 4 teams in a couple years time... those who are going to be dropped, all they have to do is file a lawsuit, then it'll remain a 14 team comp... *looks at the NZRU... **facepalm** *


    They looked like a tool in the press conference.
     
  9. Hell yes culling 4 teams from the ANZ cup would be a disaster.
     
  10. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest

    If they wanted to reduce the competition to 10 teams, I have no problem with that per-se.

    What I had the problem with was the criteria they used. There should be only ONE criteria, performance on the field. Nothing else matters. This bullshit about population sizes, stadium sizes etc is just a load of ******** put up by the major unions to ensure their place in the competititon is not under threat.

    Here is a simple formula of how the competititon could have been reduced to 10 teams, giving everyone fair and reasonable conditions under which to plan for their futures

    2009 - 14 teams
    Bottom two teams relegated to the Heartland Championship for the following season = 12 teams.

    2010 - 12 teams
    Bottom two teams relegated and the Heartland Championship winner is promoted = 11 teams.

    2011 - 11 teams
    Bottom two teams relegated and the Heartland Championship winner is promoted = 10 teams.

    2012 onwards - 10 teams
    Bottom team relegated and Heartland Championship winner promoted.
    Second to bottom team and Heartland Championship losing finalist play promotion relegation, at the Heartland Team's home ground.
     
  11. Candyman

    Candyman Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Dec 12 2009, 08:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

    Why couldn't they just use a different format keep the same teams just split them up into a pool A and a Pool B play there round robin games then have like a quarter final, semi then final??
     
  12. candybum

    candybum Guest

    because the NZRU are a bunch of tossers lol
     
  13. Candyman

    Candyman Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (candybum @ Dec 12 2009, 12:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

    Well yeah! But even a tosser could think something like this up! lol!!
     
  14. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Candyman @ Dec 12 2009, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I agree, and I have proposed a workable 14 team Two pool format with cross-pool matches, quarter and seim-finals and a plate competition on this forum before.

    All I am suggesting is that if they were really determined to reduce it to 10 teams, there would have been a far better way of going about it than simply cutting four teams based on criteria that, with the biggest weightings for population base and stadium capacity, and the smallest weighting for on field performance, were clearly designed to keep the "Big Five" Unions away from any chance of being cut.

    I think you will find that if the NZRU had said they were going to cut four teams by drawing a line under the 10th placed team, you would have seen a lot more acceptance from both the Provincial Unions and the General public. Rugby fans don't give a flying f*** about "bottom lines" and "catchment areas", they only thing they care about is seeing the competition as being performance based
     
  15. William18

    William18 Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Dec 11 2009, 09:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I hate the points idea. It has so many flaws. One major flaw would be how the points are dished out. Who would decided it? Surely, one person would have to do it all for consistency but would this one person know enough about every single player in the ANZC? Even the ones that hardly ever play? The points system also discourages loyalty. If I was good enough I would play for Wellington for $1. However, say I was rated 10, Wellington had 8 players at 10 and you were only allowed 5 players rated as a 10. I could be cut from the Wellington side even though I have been to every home game in about the past 4 years, was born in Wellington, raised and schooled in Wellington and just thoroughly love the place. With a salary cap I could just sign on for less and play for the province which I love, with the points system I would have to go to a province I don't give a **** about.

    The salary cap does need to be lessened to even up the competition, I have always said that. Even though the competition is already quite even. And, BTW, you saying that we poach players from smaller union is incredibly insulting and it's wrong. Players like Gear, Api Nakitini, Charlie Ngatai did not come from Wellington but their team is currently playing in the Heartland Championship. Most of our players have grown up and been schooled here. If you don't believe me then see for yourself http://www.wellingtonlions.co.nz/our-team/player-profiles. Most of them come from our proud Wellington schools like St Pats, Mana, Coll or Rongotai. The only players who we really took ( I hope I haven't missed anyone) were Mathewson, Kirkpatrick, Tipuna and Ramsay. Tipuna and Kirkpatrick would be unlikely to contribute much to their provincial sides. 4 out 0f 36 isn't bad, it probably is better than Tasman and better than many of the provincial unions. There are guys like David Smith who moved to get game time, you can't blame him for that. So don't make assumptions and think you are better than us just because you live in the provinces. Don't think we don't develop rugby and only poach players. We are a good union because we put time and money into developing our players, we have a good schools competition and we have an effective Rugby Union.

    But, yeah, yeah, the bolded makes sense.
     
  16. William18

    William18 Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Candyman @ Dec 12 2009, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

    Why couldn't they just use a different format keep the same teams just split them up into a pool A and a Pool B play there round robin games then have like a quarter final, semi then final??
    [/b][/quote]
    That was done. I think I remember the Tasman union being outraged that they didn't play every one once. Indeed, playing everyone once was one of the principles on which a new competition should be based. People didn't like that format and they got rid of it.
     
  17. C A Iversen

    C A Iversen Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (William18 @ Dec 12 2009, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

    Why couldn't they just use a different format keep the same teams just split them up into a pool A and a Pool B play there round robin games then have like a quarter final, semi then final??
    [/b][/quote]
    That was done. I think I remember the Tasman union being outraged that they didn't play every one once. Indeed, playing everyone once was one of the principles on which a new competition should be based. People didn't like that format and they got rid of it.
    [/b][/quote]

    I don't think everyone hated it. It was just some unions and a few fans. Nearly everyone I've heard of has thought it's not a bad idea, compared to the alternatives. Tasman are in no place to be dictating terms really.
     
  18. William18

    William18 Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Dec 12 2009, 08:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Well, LOL. If it was just performance based then 3 of the four teams rumored to be going down would have gone down anyway, Tasman would have survived. I think other criteria should be used. I would agree that stadium sizes don't matter, only Hawkes Bay can fill their stadium anyway. Population is not so important as well. What does matter to me is: financial stability, crowds, on field performance and juniors. A team like Manawatu had the backing of the public so deserved to stay in the top flight. They got great crowds and deserved to be rewarded for that. Why keep teams like Northland when in what could have been their last home game in the Air New Zealand Cup in years they only got 2,500? Obviously the unions with bigger populations should be expected to get better crowds and have more juniors. Juniors is very important as it shows people are getting involved in playing the game, unions aren't just there to care for the top team. Obviously a team struggling to get money is not very good.
     
  19. William18

    William18 Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (C A Iversen @ Dec 12 2009, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

    Why couldn't they just use a different format keep the same teams just split them up into a pool A and a Pool B play there round robin games then have like a quarter final, semi then final??
    [/b][/quote]
    That was done. I think I remember the Tasman union being outraged that they didn't play every one once. Indeed, playing everyone once was one of the principles on which a new competition should be based. People didn't like that format and they got rid of it.
    [/b][/quote]

    I don't think everyone hated it. It was just some unions and a few fans. Nearly everyone I've heard of has thought it's not a bad idea, compared to the alternatives. Tasman are in no place to be dictating terms really.
    [/b][/quote]
    I don't know if you follow cricket or not. About 12 months ago some friends of mine said that we should drop Jamie How because he wasn't getting runs. They wanted to see guys like McIntosh picked. Now that McIntosh is failing (though is now on 46) they want to see How back again. If How started failing they would again want him dropped. I think it's the same situation here, people always complain with what they have got.
     
  20. Jethro

    Jethro Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wjd23104 @ Dec 11 2009, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

    Damn Straight!!
    [/b][/quote]
    Its only a stay of execution and what happens if the NZRU decides Southland should be dropped when they inevitably decide in 2011 that teams have to be cut.
    I say this because last year it was going to be Tasman and Northland getting the boot, and because of legal challenges and the fact that the idiots in charge of other teams close to being dropped (Manawatu,Counties) didn't back the NZRU they (Manawatu and Counties) almost ended up joining them this year.

    The current set-up is a financial nightmare and something will have to be done eventually, unfortunately some unions will suffer. But look at Hawkes Bay as an example of a promoted union that gave the NZRU no reason to drop them. They are making money and punching above their weight on the field. Unions like Tasman
    have done themselves no favours with very poor administration.
    [/b][/quote]

    Dude are you even following the ins and outs of this one? The two biggest loss making Unions in 09 were Otago and Canterbury, neither of which could attract crowds or sponsors, both of whom are getting bailed out by the NZRU. Why exactly should the G9 unions be made to suffer for the ineptitude of these two darlings of the NZRU? Bay of Plenty have shown what can be done with a touch of belt tightening etc.

    Once again the NZRU have made a bogus decision and should be sacked for the careless manner in which they are guiding the game in New Zealand. They need to firmly state the ANZC will run for three more years and will then be revisited, to see if numbers are increasing across the board. This year in year out tinkering is playing havoc with unions like Counties attracting sponsorship and retaining players.

    Remember it was the NZRU who decided the highly successful NPC needed changing, simple thing there was automatic promotion/relegation and something being done about the top unions pincing minor union players, and a salary cap.

    What we have now is the NZRU inability to reach a solution that satisfies all parties, with the primary reason being to help the ARU take on the League juggernaut in this country in a competition that is losing punter interest and I believe will further decline with the insane decision to expand to 15 teams. How about we reduce the S14 back to twelve teams to fit in with the ANZC and CC.

    Once again I'll state Tew needs to go as he has made blunder after blunder and is simply damaging the game in New Zealand. With Wendyball likely to be getting a boast in 2010, and Auckland City boxing above their weight recently there are some clouds on the horizon.
     
  21. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (William18 @ Dec 12 2009, 12:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    That is completely wrong. It was Auckland who complained bitterly that some teams had got a "free ride" by not playing top teams.

    Also, most teams were happy with the 2006 and 2007 two-pool format of the ANZC. What they didn't like was the overly complicated playoff & repechage system.

    They also did not like the 2008 format that had a single pool of 14 but with only 10 rounds, which means that each team missed playing three other teams. The NZRU also retained the stupid repechage system when THAT is what needed to be changed

    My proposal (which I submitted to the NZRU but never even got the courtesy of a reply) was to divide them into two pools, seeded from the previous year's competititon. With seven in each pool, there would be three matches in each pool each week, with the "bye" teams in each pool playing each other in a cross pool match.

    After the completion of the round robins, the top 6 would go into a modified MacIntyre playoff system for the Air New Zealand Cup, and the bottom eight would go into a straight knockout for the "Air New Zealand Plate"

    You can find a detailed description of the competititon format I proposed for the NZRU here;

    http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/index.p...st&p=410115
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page