Super Rugby Axes 3 !!

[rowan]

So it's a return to Super 15, but Jags & Sunwolves stay. Teams to be axed not named, but likely to be Kings, Cheetahs and Force, though possibly Rebels. Sunwolves move to Australian Conference, which only makes sense.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRug ... s-20170409

Cape Town - SANZAAR has announced that the Super Rugby tournament has been restructured and will kick off in 2018 with a three conference, 15-team format: five teams from New Zealand, four from Australia, four from South Africa, one from Japan; and one from Argentina.

This restructuring by SANZAAR represents a crucial step in its strategic planning process that has included a comprehensive assessment of the economic and sporting environment under which its tournaments (Super Rugby and The Rugby Championship) are currently operating.

This assessment highlighted a need to adjust and strengthen Super Rugby in the short-term to ensure a robust and sustainable tournament meets the requirements of all stakeholders in terms of high performance pathways, game development, commercial revenue and fan engagement.

The change sees an overall reduction of three teams from the current 18-team format, two from South Africa and one from Australia. The Sunwolves will move into the Australian Conference. The teams from Australia and South Africa that will compete in Super Rugby will be confirmed in due course by the respective National Unions.

New Zealand Conference

Blues, Chiefs, Crusaders, Highlanders, Hurricanes

Australian Conference

Four Australian teams (TBC), Sunwolves

South Africa Conference

Four South Africa teams (TBC), Jaguares

SANZAAR Chairman, Brent Impey stated, “The decision to revert to a 15-team format reflects a consensus view of the mandated SANZAAR Executive Committee that met in London recently. It was not the determination of any one Union or stakeholder and follows a thorough assessment and review of the tournament over the last nine months.”

“SANZAAR is delighted that its major broadcast partners have after due consideration agreed to the restructured format within the existing broadcast agreements. Our broadcast partners are an important stakeholder and their vision for Super Rugby moving forward is the same as ours.”

“This decision has not been an easy one and we recognise the difficulty associated with reducing the number of teams in Australia and South Africa. Naturally we understand that there will be some very disappointed franchises but the tournament's long-term future and the economic reality of the business at present is something that had to be addressed.”

“The decision to retain the Sunwolves is linked directly to SANZAAR’s strategic plan for the future. The potential for growth of the sport in Asia off the back of the establishment of the Sunwolves and the impending RWC in 2019 is significant. It remains an obvious focus for the organisation and a Japanese Super Rugby franchise is key to that strategy."

SANZAAR CEO Andy Marinos stated, “This has been a long and complex piece of work and we make no apology for that. Super Rugby is unique in world rugby in that it is played in six countries across 15 time zones and has numerous stakeholders.”

“SANZAAR cannot continue to ignore the extensive feedback that it has received from fans, stakeholders and commercial partners around the integrity of the competition format and performances of the teams. We want to see an engaging, vibrant and competitive competition that delivers a strong high performance pathway in all markets that will have a positive flow into the international game.”

“It became clear during our strategic assessment that there are two facets to the future of our tournaments. The first is a requirement to react to existing market forces within the sporting business environment and to implement short-term change to Super Rugby. This is what we have done.”

“The second is the longer term vision, through a strategic plan, to build the brand that in the future can maximize further development of the game, commercial revenues and the ongoing sustainability of the tournaments. This work is presently ongoing and details will be released in the coming months.”

Tournament details:

- 120 match regular season plus seven match finals series

- 15 teams

- Three conferences (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa)

- 18 rounds (16 matches per team, two bye weeks)

- Each team will play eight matches within its conference (four home and four away)

- Each team will play eight cross-conference matches - against four of the five teams from each of the other two conferences (four at home and four away)

- Each team will play 12 of the other teams within the season (85% of opposition teams which is up from 70% in 2016).

- Eight team Finals Series: Three Conference winners and; five wild card places - the next best performing teams based on competition points after the Conference winners regardless of Conference.

- Conference winners and fourth-placed team on competition points will host quarter-final

[rowan]

Good idea to let the countries decide for themselves which teams to axe. Probably it'll come down to finances, but it would certainly be fun if they made this year a relegation battle for SA & Aussie teams. I can't help feeling the Saffas have been hard done by though, since they have at least 3 sides performing strongly at the moment - and they have more registered players than NZ & Aussie combined.

[rowan]

So effectively what's happened here is we've gone back to the earlier format, except Argentina and Japan now have representation at the expense of South Africa and Australia. Will this strengthen the competition, given the Sunwolves are the weakest team in the competition? Will it reduce travel demands, given it is now spread across four continents (5 if we count Zealandia ) and almost the entire planet? The answer to those questions is obviously 'no.' I do think this is an improvement on what we've had for the past two years. I don't think it's an improvement on what we had before.

[Lizard]

I think this will be good in the long term for Aussie rugby.

For SA, it will spark off another half decade or so of political bullshit.

[rowan]

It was the Sunwolves & Kings who brought the standard down, although the Rebels are looking quite abysmal this year too. Those are the 3 teams which should go if they really want to improve the quality of the competition. It's a sad day for rugby when they have to cut SA & Australian teams who were there during Super 14 & 15 when the tournament was at its best - IMHO.

[rowan]

Aussies to decide quickly . . .

The Australian Rugby Union says it will decide within three days whether the Melbourne Rebels or Western Force will be culled from Super Rugby as the southern hemisphere tournament is reduced from 18 to 15 teams next season.

http://www.sobserver.ws/en/10_04_2017/r ... n-days.htm

I'll guess it's going to be the Force, but hope I'm wrong. If it were the Rebels, Melbourne could at least merge with ACT, officially or otherwise, and host some of the Brumbies' games, now that a Super Rugby following has been establsihed there. If Perth loses the Force, that's pretty much the end of Super Rugby on the West Coast.

[rowan]

This is an interesting read and provides some real insight on the Aussie situation. Apparently they've been stretched to breaking point ever since the Rebels were formed (creating Super 15 in 2011), which may suggest they will be the team to go - though the press seems to indicate Perth is more likely. So rather than fighting tooth and nail to retain its 5 teams, the ARU has backed the reduction all the way, and saved face by pretending the whole process was big bad SANZAAR's work. The Aussies are also more interested in Trans-Tasman competition, which is understandable. To a large degree they owe their high standing in the game to their increasingly frequent contacts with NZ. But the Kiwis are not so interested in that, because for them South Africa has always been the olde enemy, the one nation that thwarted their quest for global domination throughout the amateur era. That's part of the game's folklore and inherent to the Kiwi rugby fan's psyche. http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/five- ... a252490acb

[rowan]

The plot thickens. Force to take legal action if axed. Well, they were included six years earlier than the Rebels, which means if they go and the Rebels stay, Melbourne had effectively replaced Perth. Is that justified? I don't think so . . .


WESTERN Force have taken unprecedented legal action against the Australian Rugby Union in their fight for Super Rugby survival with the Melbourne Rebels.

They served a writ on the ARU tonight night notifying the governing body of their intention to apply for an injunction against the plan to revoke their Super Rugby licence.

And they have the weight of the State Government behind them.

The writ, issued in the Supreme Court, was served after a two hour meeting between the RugbyWA board and the ARU's chief operating officer Rob Clarke and chief financial officer Todd Day.

The Force have a clause in the alliance agreement signed by the club and the ARU last year that commits both parties through the current broadcast deal that ends in 2020.

The Force and the privately owned Rebels have been told by the ARU that one of them will be extinct at the end of the season after SANZAAR decided to shrink the competition from 18 to 15 sides.

Force chief executive Mark Sinderberry said the club would not go down without a fight.

"The club will fight as hard off the pitch as the team is fighting on the pitch," he said.

In a statement issued tonight, the Force said the meeting was "unsatisfactory".

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/force-t ... 9a2caade06

[hugh_woatmeigh]

I've been out of the super rugby loop for a while but can anyone explain why it's the Force that are apparently being cut as opposed to the Rebels?

Besides Melbourne being a larger city are the rebels considered more financially viable?

[rowan]

Must be. Bigger stadiums. Shorter flight times. I think the two teams met with similarly limited success. But the Force joined about 5 years earlier, & I don't see any real basis for effectively replacing them with the Rebels - unless its financial (which I don't know about).

[zer0]

The Rebels operate under a franchise license that is held by a private owner who is capable of taking the ARU to court. Though the Force have now launched a legal challenge, so who knows what will happen.

[rowan]

Good point. I wonder whether it might be in the interests of the league to free up the franchises and put the licenses out to tender. SANZAAR itself isn't independent of the unions either; just a byword for the three major nations collectively.

[rowan]

The increasing Kiwi domination of the competition has really exposed the failure of expansion beyond 15 teams and Australia's lack of depth, in particular. We only have to re-wind 3 years to find an Australian champion - the Waratahs - who also topped the regular season with a 12-4 record. The Sharks had the third best record, 11-5, followed by the Brumbies on 10-6. Even the Force finished with a winning record, 9-7. New Zealand teams lost 19 times against foreign opposition that season, including 3 times in the play-offs. Even in the final year of the Super 15 format (2015) New Zealand lost a dozen games against foreign opposition, the Tahs had the third best record in the regular season, 11-5, the Stormers were 10-5-1, ACT & the Lions had winning records, and the Bulls and Rebels both finished mid-table on 7-9. But NZ totally dominated the play-offs that year, serving as a portent of things to come. Rather than address the growing imbalance, the organization foolishly yielded to the incessant demands of the Kings' backers and Shinnichi whims of World Rugby and expanded beyond their means.

[rowan]

Case in point: The game that's on right now...

Crusaders 50 Sunpoodles 3

[cashead]

Get over it, you fucking crybaby.

[rowan]

Maybe so. But allow me to refresh your memory of the score between the Cheetahs & Poodles last year:

Cheetahs 92 - 17 Sunwolves

[rowan]

Super saga rumbles on. Rebels are now talking about legal action, which may indicate they know something we don't I still think an ACT-Rebels merger is the best solution - Brumbies provide the muscle, Melbourne hosts about half the games.

THE fired-up Rebels are seeking compensation and have slammed the Australian Rugby Union in a strongly worded statement following their attempts to cut an Aussie Super Rugby team.

The ARU announced on Monday that either the Melbourne-based Rebels or the Perth-based Force would be cut from next year’s reduced 15-team competition, stating that the current five-team Australian model was unsustainable both financially and in terms of on-field performance.

But the already messy situation now appears almost certain to be decided by lawyers, with the Force lodging a writ with the Western Australian Supreme Court, and the Rebels reserving all legal rights and seeking compensation.

Adding to the complicated scenario, the Force are currently being run by the ARU while the Rebels are privately owned.

Initially, all indications were that the Force would be the Australian team cut but the lengthy, hard-hitting statement from the Rebels on Friday night indicates they are also feeling the heat.

[cashead]

Maybe so. But allow me to refresh your memory of the score between the Cheetahs & Poodles last year:

Cheetahs 92 - 17 Sunwolves

A team that is seen as part of a long-term development project of an entire region isn't beating all-comers left and right immediately. Well I never!

[rowan]

Right, and a competition which is struggling to sustain itself due to declining standards and excessive travel demands is the ideal laboratory for this experiment with a substandard team from a continent outside its recognized geographical region. Brilliant! Next up let's just stick the Californian Grizzlies in the Aviva Championship and see how that works out . . .

[cashead]

Why? The ARU have actually done a fair bit to help develop Japanese rugby talent in the last decade or so, and the travelling distance between Narita and Auckland is about 10 hours, compared to 13 between NZ and Argentina. If anything, it's the Jaguares that have been the biggest disappointment and ought to be dropped, rather than the Sunwolves.

[cashead]

Aside from that, if you can't see how continued exposure to top-level opposition helps develop the quality of playing stock over a protracted period, even at the provincial level, then I don't know what to say to you.

[rowan]

Still missing the point, Cashead. By all means, help the Japanese - and all the other so-called lower tier nations. But there are other ways of doing it than throwing them into a competition that is struggling to maintain its quality and high standards, and in which they will only compound its problems, while also destroying its regional identity (and, therefore, credibility, IMHO). I've long been a proponent of close contacts with Japan through regular internationals. & if they want to restructure Super Rugby entirely, break away from SA (& Argentina) and form a Championship also involving the islands, then I'd be perfectly happy to see the Sunwolves involved. But surely you see the folly of putting them into a competition which has just decided to axe three teams due to declining standards, when so far the Sunwolves have proved to be the most substandard team of all themselves - and by some distance. As for your comment about the Jaguares, that's a little bizarre. They were competitive last season and had a major impact on the final itself by stopping the Lions from gaining the home advantage. This year they have been right up there with the best and certainly look stronger than any of the Aussie teams, let alone the Sunwolves and Kings.& your distance rationale is obviously Kiwicentric.

[rowan]

Anyway, looks like the Sunwolves are here to stay and it'll be interesting to see how they go in the Australian conference, which is clearly the weakest at present, and which is also in their own time zone. If I'm not mistaken, it was the Australasians who pushed for Japanese inclusion. The South Africans were against it, and especially having to accommodate them in one of their own conferences, but that was the trade-off for the inclusion of the Kings & Jaguares, both of which SA was alone in backing.

[rowan]

This really does say it all:



The the article it features in has a somewhat different perspective, however: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/the-wo ... ian-rugby/

[rowan]

Just looking over the stats and more convinced than ever an ACT-Melbourne merger is the way to go. Both franchises, like the Force, have averaged just under 10K fans at their home-games so far this season. Compare this to the Reds, with about 15K (in spite of their dreadful form), and NSW at almost 12K. Distance-wise Canberra & Melbourne are about 600 kms apart, or just over an hour's flight. The drive can be done in 7 hours, too, making it a comfortable overnight round-trip for those who prefer that mode of transport. The Brumbies would be the major partner, of course, and effectively incorporate the Rebels. They could drop ACT from their name and either replace it with 'South East' or just leave it blank like the NZ & SA teams do. The Brumbies would then play around half their regular season games in Victoria, and probably any big play-off games could go south as well, with the bigger stadiums on offer there. This just seems a good fit to me from all possible angles.