RugbyRebels

https://m.sport24.co.za/Rugby/sa-franch ... 4-20200531

Would be class.

Not sure what it would mean for Europe, but they have the Currie Cup and could maybe run that alongside the pro14.

A bit cryptic - says only 5 SA teams would be part of it but would go up to a pro18. Scope for an extra Scottish team??

Cameo wrote:A bit cryptic - says only 5 SA teams would be part of it but would go up to a pro18. Scope for an extra Scottish team??

I think some folk struggle with sums.

Pro14, 14 teams including 2 SA teams. Add 4 more SA teams, its 18 teams.

septic 9 wrote:

Cameo wrote:A bit cryptic - says only 5 SA teams would be part of it but would go up to a pro18. Scope for an extra Scottish team??

I think some folk struggle with sums.

Pro14, 14 teams including 2 SA teams. Add 4 more SA teams, its 18 teams.

Yup, think you might need some remedial maths. Last I checked 2 + 4 = 6 but the article says that there would only be 5 SA teams in the competition. 14 teams, including 2 SA teams, plus 3 only adds up to 17.

I wonder how much additional revenue the league thinks that it brings. Would have to be quite a lot to offset the additional travel and accommodation costs involved.

Not a fan of the South African teams in the Pro xx league. No matter how many you want in it.

The overall quality of Super Rugby has lowered the more teams that are involved and I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the negatives of having teams on another continent involved.

Would rather see a European league but that wouldn't work either.

switchskier wrote:

septic 9 wrote:

Cameo wrote:A bit cryptic - says only 5 SA teams would be part of it but would go up to a pro18. Scope for an extra Scottish team??

I think some folk struggle with sums.

Pro14, 14 teams including 2 SA teams. Add 4 more SA teams, its 18 teams.

Yup, think you might need some remedial maths. Last I checked 2 + 4 = 6 but the article says that there would only be 5 SA teams in the competition. 14 teams, including 2 SA teams, plus 3 only adds up to 17.

I wonder how much additional revenue the league thinks that it brings. Would have to be quite a lot to offset the additional travel and accommodation costs involved.

Thanks Switch! That was the bit that I thought was cryptic!

Equally not sure on this. I can see some advantages but the league risks becoming a mess. To engage people, I think it matters that you can say what you are trying to win. The pro14 struggles with that already but can just about say it is the Celtic countries with some add ons. If SA has more teams than anyone else, there is no real unifying factor.

Not that that factor is decisive but I think they need to come up with a coherent structure before deciding whether this is really something that can be made to work.

Cameo wrote: qually not sure on this. I can see some advantages but the league risks becoming a mess. .......................

Not that that factor is decisive but I think they need to come up with a coherent structure before deciding whether this is really something that can be made to work.

nail on head there

pro14 has a vision thing. Italy has a big population so TV audience potentially large (I know it a football mad country, so is Scotland so lets not be a kettle calling the pot black. Even Wales is these days despite their traditions and some of them will tell you.). TV audiences are more important than numbers through the gate. Its TV that gets the big money in pro sport, with the sponsorship and advertising that goes with it.
So same applies to SA. Anyani the CEO of pro14 took this further if you remember by actively seeking teams from the USA. And therein lies the crunch.

As you say, the league could become a mess. The lesson is Super Rugby. It turned fans off. We would not have the same timezone issues, but convoluted structures to ensure qualifiers from the big 3, the lop sided conferences that no-one understood, the regular long haul travel which every player asked tells you is horrific (and means bigger travelling squads and costs)

I'm very wary.

I think it could work well if they got the travel right (max 4 long haul return flights per season?). A SA conference would be well attended, have a sprinkling of stardust and get good viewing figures. Fans would come to places like Ravenhill, Liberty stadium, etc to see Kolisi or du Toit in a Stormers jersey, or Vermeulen rampaging through for the Bulls.

If there could be an exclusively SA conference, I can see it gaining credence. Just not sure how the numbers would work unless they added the Griquas or an Argentinian team based in, say, Madrid. Or the Dundee Unicorns!

Lots of ifs! I guess I am also wary, but reckon it’s worth a crack.

General Zod wrote:I think it could work well if they got the travel right (max 4 long haul return flights per season?). A SA conference would be well attended, have a sprinkling of stardust and get good viewing figures. Fans would come to places like Ravenhill, Liberty stadium, etc to see Kolisi or du Toit in a Stormers jersey, or Vermeulen rampaging through for the Bulls.

If there could be an exclusively SA conference, I can see it gaining credence. Just not sure how the numbers would work unless they added the Griquas or an Argentinian team based in, say, Madrid. Or the Dundee Unicorns!

Lots of ifs! I guess I am also wary, but reckon it’s worth a crack.

A SA conference might, might be well attended. Gate income is 20% of income as a rule. Its TV money etc that we need.
4 max long haul flights with 6 SA teams - means either a SA conf, in which case it'll be a max of 2 long haul flights and little to no opportunity to see their big names in the UK or Ireland; or another bastardised convoluted conference set up which no-one understands and which lands more than ever on who gets the shit away games and who gets the easy home games in a draw.

How many would travel to SA for a play-off or final?

I would!

They have to avoid the convoluted conference thing. I don’t mind the pro14 set-up as is, but super rugby is impenetrable bollocks designed to let each of the 3 main tv viewing ‘jurisdictions’ into the final stages.

I don’t see why they couldn’t use the SA conference as part of the Currie Cup - that would add bums to seats. When we’re playing in the european comps, they could be playing the Griquas or Pumas or whoever isn’t included in the Pro18 table.

If I get more time, I might have a sneaky look at the patents/ copyright agency website (or whatever it is) to see whether any new logos have been registered! As it is, I’m watching Tipping Point while pretending to work.

General Zod wrote:I would!

They have to avoid the convoluted conference thing. I don’t mind the pro14 set-up as is, but super rugby is impenetrable bollocks designed to let each of the 3 main tv viewing ‘jurisdictions’ into the final stages.

I don’t see why they couldn’t use the SA conference as part of the Currie Cup - that would add bums to seats. When we’re playing in the european comps, they could be playing the Griquas or Pumas or whoever isn’t included in the Pro18 table.

If I get more time, I might have a sneaky look at the patents/ copyright agency website (or whatever it is) to see whether any new logos have been registered! As it is, I’m watching Tipping Point while pretending to work.

remember that the final is currently a destination final, so it would be possible to book as soon as the destination is announced. Many fans do that currently, and many then call off if their team isn't involved. Travel within the UK can be done lat minute so its only a cancelable hotel and a ticket (sometimes resold to a fan who didn't expect their team to quailfy!). Air fare to SA are a bit more difficult to write off, so I guess it would be a commitment to go; but far fewer numbers I suspect.

For a play -off, we're talking often aweeks notice, so no-one will be going to SA outside a team charter, still prohibitively expensive for a one night stay

True, but I’m not sure the attendance at the final is a huge money-spinner for everyone. May be wrong.

How many games per team should we be aiming for?

Assuming that it goes straight to a semi final and final then does 20 regular season games seem about right? Would 16 (i.e. two pools of 9 with no cross pool matches) be too few?

From a Scottish point of view, I think if we went down to 16 games we might want to organise a separate Edinburgh Glasgow game or two or even a formal trial. We would also want to arrange some A team games or get fringe players more involved in the Super 6 - alternatively, if we only had 16 games, squads could be smaller and we could form a third pro team!

I am reasonably open to new teams and even SA (if it is their best teams) but it is pointless just adding up TV populations if you don't think first about a format that is coherent and leads to the right number and type of games.

Big D wrote:Would rather see a European league but that wouldn't work either.

This proposal could well be a prelude or proving ground for exactly that.
It might give us a chance in that case. Were it to go straight to a Euro League the English & French would set the rules, Irish would be in because "Irish" & Wales would make the usual noise about being the best supported guardians of the game etc.

Never mind getting scraps from the table, we wouldn't even be in the room.

Perhaps the ProXX route gives a chance to demonstrate competitiveness on the field (which we have to the grudging acceptance of southern media types) and more importantly off the field - which is where we need the clout.

General Zod wrote:True, but I’m not sure the attendance at the final is a huge money-spinner for everyone. May be wrong.

it isn't, but attendances have been on the rise since they moved away from its always in Dublin RDS

40+k last 2 finals IIRC

But 2k-3k for Connacht v Ospreys (yes it could happen, isn't a good look for TV and sponsors either. even 5-6k for sat Leinster v Scarlets in a 50k stadium is levels. But it is areal killer for travelling fans way beyond anything in Italy or France is for us - Glasgow especially and Edinburgh have a decent away following these days.
A play off at a week's notice simply not a practical proposition financially. For a final, its a gamble. Some no doubt up for a game coupled with a break, but very limited numbers.

Same incidentally for Bok fans if the final is over here - difference being they will have a goodly number of ex pats in the UK I think

af73 wrote:

Big D wrote:Would rather see a European league but that wouldn't work either.

This proposal could well be a prelude or proving ground for exactly that.
It might give us a chance in that case. Were it to go straight to a Euro League the English & French would set the rules, Irish would be in because "Irish" & Wales would make the usual noise about being the best supported guardians of the game etc.

Never mind getting scraps from the table, we wouldn't even be in the room.

Perhaps the ProXX route gives a chance to demonstrate competitiveness on the field (which we have to the grudging acceptance of southern media types) and more importantly off the field - which is where we need the clout.

I simply cannot see a european league happening. So many reasons why not.
But I agree that one benefit that bringing SA fully within the proxx umbrella would be to increase its influence and decrease that of NZ and Aus. I've nearly convinced myself it would be a good thing just for that last reason

af73 wrote:

Big D wrote:Would rather see a European league but that wouldn't work either.

This proposal could well be a prelude or proving ground for exactly that.
It might give us a chance in that case. Were it to go straight to a Euro League the English & French would set the rules, Irish would be in because "Irish" & Wales would make the usual noise about being the best supported guardians of the game etc.

Never mind getting scraps from the table, we wouldn't even be in the room.

Perhaps the ProXX route gives a chance to demonstrate competitiveness on the field (which we have to the grudging acceptance of southern media types) and more importantly off the field - which is where we need the clout.

Not sure I follow that last sentence to be honest. Having the SA teams in the Pro xx will do little IMO to show on field competitiveness. The usual teams will still treat it as they do now and send skeleton/2nd choice sides to South Africa. Adding another 3 Saffa sides doesn't mean people will view the league any differently. It would just put us behind another country in the pecking order you describe above if the SA sides want in to a "euro" league.

If anything the entry of the SA teams to the Pro xx may lead to them being in a rebranded Euro/African Cup which would make it more difficult for Edinburgh or Glasgow to make a mark.

We keep adding teams from other countries in thinking it will improve the league etc but having the Italians and 2 existing South African teams in the league hasn't really offered a whole lot of benefits other than TV money. It hasn't made the league any better to watch IMO.

septic 9 wrote:
I simply cannot see a european league happening. So many reasons why not.

I agree. It is an idea that sounds good but has too many issues that would prevent it happening and surviving.

As an aside, they need to move the camera at Scotstoun to the opposite side. Would make it look like more of an event and attract more interest.

Anyway, I’m not sure how the maths of 5 SA teams would work if they’re making it into 18. If they do ditch a SA team, I’m not sure it would be the Kings, even though they seem the obvious target. The Government there are keen to see pro rugby in the Eastern Cape for various reasons. When SA rugby had to look at cutting teams a while ago, it was made plain that state funding wouldn’t be as available if the Kings were cut.

septic 9 wrote:

af73 wrote:

Big D wrote:Would rather see a European league but that wouldn't work either.

This proposal could well be a prelude or proving ground for exactly that.
It might give us a chance in that case. Were it to go straight to a Euro League the English & French would set the rules, Irish would be in because "Irish" & Wales would make the usual noise about being the best supported guardians of the game etc.

Never mind getting scraps from the table, we wouldn't even be in the room.

Perhaps the ProXX route gives a chance to demonstrate competitiveness on the field (which we have to the grudging acceptance of southern media types) and more importantly off the field - which is where we need the clout.

I simply cannot see a european league happening. So many reasons why not.
But I agree that one benefit that bringing SA fully within the proxx umbrella would be to increase its influence and decrease that of NZ and Aus. I've nearly convinced myself it would be a good thing just for that last reason

Genuine question - what malign influence do NZ and Aus have? Not saying they don't but I don't particularly see them as pushing through anything adverse to us

Big D wrote: We keep adding teams from other countries in thinking it will improve the league etc but having the Italians and 2 existing South African teams in the league hasn't really offered a whole lot of benefits other than TV money. It hasn't made the league any better to watch IMO.

In terms of pure on the field stuff, I think my ideal is a ten team Celtic League (with an aim to expand to 12) as long as the Welsh take it seriously and our teams stay competitive. It has less (or at least rotating) weak links, a coherent structure, and a geographical logic.

I recognise the other factors for helping Italy and benefitting from their and SA's TV market but I don't think we can kid ourselves that they have made the league better to watch.

We'd(the UK ) would be better off with a 2 tier British League, promotion and relegation 2 up 2 down, keep the English Championship happy if the bottom finishing side in Div 2 is English then the Winning side in the Championship get promoted. Unless the rest of the UK went back to clubs it would be hard to get any of the other countries promoting and relegating.

Cameo wrote: Genuine question - what malign influence do NZ and Aus have? Not saying they don't but I don't particularly see them as pushing through anything adverse to us

Malign maybe not the right word. They look after their own interests as they should, and have been to date very successful IMHO.

A couple of examples - we had in the past changes to how a scrum was set up and reffed. I am sure the impetus has come from mainly Aus. Aus want change every season it seems, and its always about making a spectacle rather than improving their game, and we get consequences that were not intended. Its usually also a rule change in an area to suit them and their TV master, Fox Sports. The same Fox who has engineered a coup in the ARU and not got its own placeman running the show.

Also we have had RWC dates moved to avoid clashing with Super Rugby, moved further into our NH season.

There are others but they are also the biggest whingers around. Currently as you must know (and pre Corona) ARU are broke, NZ not as far down that line but have clear and increasing issues retaining players. So they whine about a world league and helping tier 2 unions - when in fact their proposals marginalise tier 2 even more. Its a pure attempt to get what they have been moaning about for a few seasons - more of our income. Gate sharing, pooling TV and sponsorship cash from matches played up here and down there. Its all pure self interest and they think we are mugs.

Scotland (and Wales, Italy, even Ireland) are not flush with infinite amounts of cash to share with the SH. We are on our own a small nation, small TV audience and that limits us in developing not just pro rugby but all rugby. NZ should face up to the same issues as we have to. Aus is a much bigger population and potential audience. They have mismanaged hugely and the constant attempts to look more like NRL could never succeed long term (if you want to watch NRL, watch NRL!). Poor dabs have all those other sports to compete with. As if Scotland doesn't have to cope with football

Good luck to them. sort themselves out, earn their own money

https://m.sport24.co.za/Rugby/PRO14/pro ... e-20200603

Some commentary from a South African journalist. I’d be gutted if the government insisted on the kings over the cheetahs. Cheetahs have won the Currie cup twice recently, brought a load of players through and been competitive in 2 out of 3 seasons in the pro14. (The season where they weren’t much cop was arguably because they’d been playing rugby continuously for about 24 months).

General Zod wrote:https://m.sport24.co.za/Rugby/PRO14/pro ... e-20200603

Some commentary from a South African journalist. I’d be gutted if the government insisted on the kings over the cheetahs. Cheetahs have won the Currie cup twice recently, brought a load of players through and been competitive in 2 out of 3 seasons in the pro14. (The season where they weren’t much cop was arguably because they’d been playing rugby continuously for about 24 months).

"One key snag, however, is that South Africa would be required to limit their participation to five sides, meaning an “odd one out” in such an environment from a group including the four Super Rugby teams and the already PRO14-active Cheetahs and Kings."

unless and until these numpties can explain either why SA are limited to 5 teams or learn to do sums I'm ignoring them

NB, it not the Government which would decide (not directly anyway) as that would fall foul or WR - no govt interference allowed.