• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Super 15 success???

Yeah i don't think the future of the professional game has Australia and New Zealand playing South African clubs regularly. If anything it makes more sense for SA to play European teams and for Aus/NZ to focus on cultivating the game in the pacific and Asia.

The Kiwis are loathe to let go of the South Africans though.
This is the sticking point with SR, SA want to move north as that is where the money is for them in TV revenues, but NZ want to play them to expose their top players to the level of rugby that will improve them, (far more than Aussies will).
ONe option would be to follow Forrest's idea and get the Aussie and NZ franchises to become private within a single entity operation like the NFL. Then the Pacific players, (already capped) could be drafted to play in here teams and improve the standard further. A Pacific Championships with 10-12 teams could then run.

This idea that the PI could host a team in SR will not happen as they do not have enough money, although I do like the idea of having a team based in Hawaii, using the best US players and best PI players.
 
That makes sense to me and I think this time zone friendly arrangement is the future for the SA and Australia teams. I fully support the SA teams going to Europe firstly for the money and the travel factors. Australia is on the continual losing end firstly because it has been mismanaged and therefore has lost ground to the other codes and secondly it is doubly difficult to make up this ground because of the weird timezones. It takes out a lot of the casual viewers and followers.

I do, however, think the Rugby Championship should continue.
I think the Rugby Championship is by and large a success. I don't think you could ever remove the Aus/NZ/SA axis at the international level without gutting the essence of professional rugby in the Southern Hemisphere.

Super Rugby is probably a dead model. It seems completely unsustainable financially and it seems the only country with the appetite for it anymore is New Zealand.

Edit: i would even go so far as to say it is actively damaging the sport in the southern hemisphere and it needs to go.
 
Last edited:
I think the Rugby Championship is by and large a success. I don't think you could ever remove the Aus/NZ/SA axis at the international level without gutting the essence of professional rugby in the Southern Hemisphere.

Super Rugby is probably a dead model. It seems completely unsustainable financially and it seems the only country with the appetite for it anymore is New Zealand.

Edit: i would even go so far as to say it is actively damaging the sport in the southern hemisphere and it needs to go.
I agree with everything you said, especially the last paragraph. SR is actively damaging the sport in Australia. I have no doubt about that.
 
This is the sticking point with SR, SA want to move north as that is where the money is for them in TV revenues, but NZ want to play them to expose their top players to the level of rugby that will improve them, (far more than Aussies will).
ONe option would be to follow Forrest's idea and get the Aussie and NZ franchises to become private within a single entity operation like the NFL. Then the Pacific players, (already capped) could be drafted to play in here teams and improve the standard further. A Pacific Championships with 10-12 teams could then run.

This idea that the PI could host a team in SR will not happen as they do not have enough money, although I do like the idea of having a team based in Hawaii, using the best US players and best PI players.

If SA leaves, I think that the Australia/Asia/NZ comp will need to have a draft for ALL players not just PI players. High quality NZ players will need to be spread throughout the competition for it to be competitive at all.

NZ does not want to open its player pool because they need as tight a relationship as possible between players and fans to monetize their small market.

I personally think that SA leaving SR will be very bad for rugby in NZ and therefore very bad for rugby in general. Kiwi everything - players, coaches, playing styles - is the only thing that makes rugby remotely interesting as a spectator sport to casual fans in the international market.

Also, a comp without SA will generate significantly less revenue. Capped PI players will not find the league financially attractive.
 
Also, even if SA leaves Argentina is staying and will then have more teams. The time zone issue isn't going away no matter what.
 
Yeah I'm not sure what is happening in Argentina but I highly doubt they could support a second team which is a concern in itself. Does anyone know what the domestic scene is there? What's the UAR been up to?
 
NZ will never let SA leave, they'd rather give up Australia than that.
 
NZ will never let SA leave, they'd rather give up Australia than that.
'let'

The current TV deal is ending pretty soon. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

South Africa have the least to be gained by staying and the most be gained by leaving. Their fans are deserting the Super franchises in droves and they can't watch the majority of the matches at regular hours. There is likely to be more money made by having games that can be viewed by Europe.

I don't even know why they are still here.
 
'let'

The current TV deal is ending pretty soon. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

South Africa have the least to be gained by staying and the most be gained by leaving. Their fans are deserting the Super franchises in droves and they can't watch the majority of the matches at regular hours. There is likely to be more money made by having games that can be viewed by Europe.

I don't even know why they are still here.

Cheetahs and kings both had higher average attendance in SR last year than Pro 14 this year.

I am not South African, just a Boks fan, but SR allows for SA fans to watch rugby all day and the games never overlap. It's really pretty good for a TV viewing fan. SR is a much better TV product than the more gate driven European leagues where many games start at the same time on Saturday and Sunday afternoons in order to maximize ticket paying crowds.

SARU won't ditch SANZAAR and Super Rugby entirely. They would be fools not to maximize both revenue streams.

I also doubt that the Pro 14 wants 6 SA franchises. They just want to trade up in terms of the markets. They want Gauteng, Cape Town and Durban not Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth.

SA franchises will remain in Super Rugby.
 
By moving north we would just put our players in a display case where the pro 14 and aviva premiership clubs can throw money at them. Yes our finances might increase but we would still be st the bottom of the ladder in terms of finances compared to the European clubs.

Super rugby has the strongest clubs/ franchises in the world, the quality of rugby and the players is probably unmatched. I would never want my franchise to leave Super rugby until we have won it. Once we have won it then its a different story.
 
By moving north we would just put our players in a display case where the pro 14 and aviva premiership clubs can throw money at them. Yes our finances might increase but we would still be st the bottom of the ladder in terms of finances compared to the European clubs.

Super rugby has the strongest clubs/ franchises in the world, the quality of rugby and the players is probably unmatched. I would never want my franchise to leave Super rugby until we have won it. Once we have won it then its a different story.

So you just want the Bulls gone... Sies!!
 
Yeah like AM_Bokke says SR in SA is rugby heaven. You can pretty much watch rugby from 7am to 7pm with a break here and there on a good day. Times suck big time for Australia and probably NZ too. Not sure about Argentina.

By moving north we would just put our players in a display case where the pro 14 and aviva premiership clubs can throw money at them. Yes our finances might increase but we would still be st the bottom of the ladder in terms of finances compared to the European clubs.

Super rugby has the strongest clubs/ franchises in the world, the quality of rugby and the players is probably unmatched. I would never want my franchise to leave Super rugby until we have won it. Once we have won it then its a different story.
Will that really change much? Most go there anyway. Every year they seem to be leaving younger and there are more of them. Wouldn't the move up north bring some more money in for the SA unions and therefore increase the competitiveness of the salaries? I have no idea how money flows between the SANZAAR partners at the moment. I've only heard rumours that SA contributes the most.
 
I think the big improvement is that teams from each conference must play teams from every other conference. But they didn't need to cut teams to achieve that.

I'm not a fan of the Force getting cut (to put it mildly) and think that the sport is at a really low ebb in SA and Oz because their sides cannot be competitive (due to losing talent to Europe and / or mismanagement). There is a very long way to go. The product on the field is good though.

I also don't agree with what SANZAR did in cutting the Force; if they were going to cut a team, it should have been the Rebels (last on first off, and its a lost cause in a market saturated by AFL and Soccer). VFL, the second tier of Aussie Football gets bigger crowd than the Rebels. Even Women's AFL gets comparable crowds.

The Force was getting bigger crowds, had more money behind it, and Perth acted acted as an excellent stopover for teams travelling from Australia's east coast and New Zealand to and from South Africa and vice-versa.

But even more stupid is that they didn't need to cut any teams at all. The real reason the 18 team competition didn't work was because of the overly complex dual South African conference system that distorted the results in favour of which ever of those conferences didn't playing against NZ teams. All SANZAR needed to do was run it the way they run the 15 team competition... three conferences of six (instead of five) teams..

1. Six South African teams
2. Five Australian teams + Sunwolves
3. Five New Zealand teams + Jaguares

Nine matches every weekend except when byes were scheduled.
Home and Away in-conference derbies
Each team plays four of the six teams in each of the other two conferences (two home and two away)
 
I also don't agree with what SANZAR did in cutting the Force; if they were going to cut a team, it should have been the Rebels (last on first off, and its a lost cause in a market saturated by AFL and Soccer). VFL, the second tier of Aussie Football gets bigger crowd than the Rebels. Even Women's AFL gets comparable crowds.

The Force was getting bigger crowds, had more money behind it, and Perth acted acted as an excellent stopover for teams travelling from Australia's east coast and New Zealand to and from South Africa and vice-versa.

But even more stupid is that they didn't need to cut any teams at all. The real reason the 18 team competition didn't work was because of the overly complex dual South African conference system that distorted the results in favour of which ever of those conferences didn't playing against NZ teams. All SANZAR needed to do was run it the way they run the 15 team competition... three conferences of six (instead of five) teams..

1. Six South African teams
2. Five Australian teams + Sunwolves
3. Five New Zealand teams + Jaguares

Nine matches every weekend except when byes were scheduled.
Home and Away in-conference derbies
Each team plays four of the six teams in each of the other two conferences (two home and two away)

Yup, that was the plan we all hoped for but as usual the brainstrust (or lack thereof) at SANZAAR went another route.

But with the reports like this one: https://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRugby/super-rugby-eyes-us-expansion-report-20180503

To expand to the US, would make a 20-team tournament a better option.

That would bring 4 pools of 5 or 5 pools of 4.
 
Yeah like AM_Bokke says SR in SA is rugby heaven. You can pretty much watch rugby from 7am to 7pm with a break here and there on a good day. Times suck big time for Australia and probably NZ too. Not sure about Argentina.


Will that really change much? Most go there anyway. Every year they seem to be leaving younger and there are more of them. Wouldn't the move up north bring some more money in for the SA unions and therefore increase the competitiveness of the salaries? I have no idea how money flows between the SANZAAR partners at the moment. I've only heard rumours that SA contributes the most.

Yes, players move to play in Europe already but those teams are not direct competitors. Next year Pro 14 sides will come to SA with players that played for the Cheetahs last year. If this becomes how the league functions then I think that would be a turnoff to fans. NZ and Aus teams don't sign SA players. Being a feeder team to foreign sides in your own competition is pretty unattractive I think.

I don't understand the "Europe will get us more money" argument.

SA based fans would still need to be more engaged by the Pro 14 in order to better monetize the league. Yes, the Pro 14 has more content (games) but that only matters if people care.

People bring up that SA clubs will be "making Euros" but SANZAAR deals are dominated in American dollars so it's not like they are full of currency risk at present.

Also, as far as I understand, Pro 14 unions want more money too. They aren't just going to give revenue to SA franchises.

The only way that I see that the Pro 14 is worth more to SA franchises is through the sponsorship market and getting Euro consumer eyeballs on companies that sponsor SA teams. That requires that Europeans watch SA teams in the comp.

And again, the markets in which SR operates are already better and have more upside than Pro 14 markets. I think that any business would take the upside offered by Eastern Australia, Tokyo and Buenos Aires over Welsh and Irish regions or the small towns where the Italian teams are based.
 
I also don't agree with what SANZAR did in cutting the Force; if they were going to cut a team, it should have been the Rebels (last on first off, and its a lost cause in a market saturated by AFL and Soccer). VFL, the second tier of Aussie Football gets bigger crowd than the Rebels. Even Women's AFL gets comparable crowds.

The Force was getting bigger crowds, had more money behind it, and Perth acted acted as an excellent stopover for teams travelling from Australia's east coast and New Zealand to and from South Africa and vice-versa.

But even more stupid is that they didn't need to cut any teams at all. The real reason the 18 team competition didn't work was because of the overly complex dual South African conference system that distorted the results in favour of which ever of those conferences didn't playing against NZ teams. All SANZAR needed to do was run it the way they run the 15 team competition... three conferences of six (instead of five) teams..

1. Six South African teams
2. Five Australian teams + Sunwolves
3. Five New Zealand teams + Jaguares

Nine matches every weekend except when byes were scheduled.
Home and Away in-conference derbies
Each team plays four of the six teams in each of the other two conferences (two home and two away)

I think that the consensus is there that Aus does not have the players or fan engagement at present to support 5 SR teams. They just can't do it. Hopefully in the future but not now.

And SARU has said that they can only support four SR teams as well I think. Which shows that the Pro 14 move is about the diversification of revenue sources.
 
We dont have the money for a second franchise. Not the players we would need to resort to external hiring. If SA ever goes, Jags are going with them. There is no profit in playing NZ/AUS teams...too far away.
 
The situation with the Pro14 is very fluid. They have signed a new TV deal reportedly increasing the money from £12 million to £30 million per year (unconfirmed at this stage) and I'd imagine some of that increase will be shared with the SARU and make the league more attractive as a financial option compared to Super Rugby than may currently be the case. The flip side is it may make South Africa (and their TV money) less of a pressing necessity for the Pro14 to compete with other European leagues.

Yes the level of interest in Pro14 in SA seems disappointing compared to Super Rugby last year, but it had almost zero buildup as it was a last minute decision. Plus, the level of interest in Super Rugby in SA this year seems less than it was last year. So perhaps the Pro14 interest was not as awful relative to Super Rugby as it may first appear.

The bottom line is I'm not sure how anyone can draw any firm conclusions about how this may resolve itself.

Yeah I'm not sure what is happening in Argentina but I highly doubt they could support a second team which is a concern in itself. Does anyone know what the domestic scene is there? What's the UAR been up to?

There are rumours at this stage of a professional league encompassing Argentina, Brazil, Chile & (possibly) Paraguay starting in 2019, but rumours is all it is at this stage (and its hard to see how that could be an option for top tier Argentine talent unless they were distributed across foreign sides in the competition (as suggested above for NZ)).
 
We dont have the money for a second franchise. Not the players we would need to resort to external hiring. If SA ever goes, Jags are going with them. There is no profit in playing NZ/AUS teams...too far away.

Are you sure? I always thought that you wanted another team?

Also there is probably a good return on a second team if Arg could have a home game every week and then the broadcaster could offer a fixed time to show it. Would probably be worth quite a bit.

The margins would diminish after that though.

Londan is 11,120 Kilometes from Buenos Aires.

Sydney is 11,800.

Closer but by less than 10%.

It's not clear that Europe would take you either.
 
Last edited:
Have yet to see a full stadium in any of the conferences. Is there a team in SR that can actually fill its own stadium for a game or are the grounds just too big?
 

Latest posts

Top