Super Rugby News
-
@mariner4life It won't matter whether there's 15 teams or 12 teams. Revenue generation will only keep going down. It's losing money and will continue to haemorrhage. As a regular season comp, Super Rugby's time is up. Frankly it's surprising it lasted 20 years. I suspect even Steve Tew will realise that by 2020.
-
@antipodean Aren't the Force relying on ARU money to survive? And the ARU doesn't have any.
-
Rugby-Western Force reject report of Super Rugby exit
"Under no circumstances do we believe... speculation around the future of the Western Force to be true," the team said.
"Two and a half weeks ago, through a national phone link-up, all clubs were told that the ARU (Australian Rugby Union) through the governing body, SANZAAR, was investigating a number of issues and those issues had to be resolved prior to a decision being made to reduce any of the Australian franchises.
"There has been no further contact from the Australian Rugby Union to any of the Western Force players or staff, so at this time there is no further comment on the matter until substantiated facts are put forward."
Rugby-Western Force reject report of Super Rugby exit
The Western Force have issued a strongly worded statement rejecting a media report that they are about to be axed from Super Rugby as the governing body looks to shake up the competition from as early as next year.
-
ARU reaffirms position amid Force axe report
The ARU has clarified its position on the future of Super Rugby amid reports the Western Force could be cut, saying no decision has been taken on the removal of one of Australia's franchises.
ARU clarifiies Super Rugby position; no decision made on axing teams
"As announced by SANZAAR following the SANZAAR Board meeting in London earlier this month, the four member nations have undertaken a period of stakeholder consultation to work towards an agreed outcome on the competition format for the 2018 season," ARU chief executive Bill Pulver said.
"This stakeholder consultation, which has included consultation with broadcast partners in each territory, is ongoing. At this point, there has been no determination on the future competition format or the teams involved in the competition.
"We also wish to confirm for the public record that no decision has been taken on the removal of one of Australia's Super Rugby teams.
"ARU, as a joint venture partner of SANZAAR, is working towards a final resolution in the shortest timeframe possible and will inform Rugby fans as soon as an outcome is reached."
The Force had earlier responded to the report themselves with chief executive Mark Sindeberry saying: "Under no circumstances do we believe today's speculation around the future of the Road Safety Western Force to be true.
"Two and half weeks ago, through a national phone link-up all clubs were told that the ARU, through the governing body SANZAAR, was investigating a number of issues and those issues had to be resolved prior to a decision being made to reduce any of the Australian franchises.
"There has been no further contact from the Australian Rugby Union to any of the Western Force players or staff, so at this time there is no further comment on the matter until substantiated facts are put forward."
-
ah unions, how good are they?
The Aussie players union has started a petition to call for all 5 teams to be retained. They have threatened strike action if a team is cut.
Is there anything more "uniony" than throwing a tantrum to get what they see as the rights of the individual, be damned what is good for the industry?
Also, if the Aussie players went on strike, would we notice the difference?
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby News:
ah unions, how good are they?
The Aussie players union has started a petition to call for all 5 teams to be retained. They have threatened strike action if a team is cut.
Is there anything more "uniony" than throwing a tantrum to get what they see as the rights of the individual, be damned what is good for the industry?
Also, if the Aussie players went on strike, would we notice the difference?
I think it's nice they're fighting to protect the jobs of guys like Mafi, Garden-Bachop, C Retallick etc.
In all seriousness, the fact that WA is actually producing home-grown talent suggests they should be retained. While it would be incredibly harsh to kill the Brumbies, one of the best ever Super franchises, all financial and forward thinking logic would justify this. Ultimately the Brumbies were originally the little ginger bitch of Aus rugby but together with a great coach, a team of rejects and some extraordinary, once in a generation local talent (Gregan and Larkham) they built a goddam dynasty. But that doesn't take away that Canberra is a miniscule market with pretty zero scope for growth.
Oh yeah, Canberra is also a stupid, pointless, freezing, soulless arsehole of a town. In my humble opinion of course
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Super Rugby News:
But that doesn't take away that Canberra is a miniscule market with pretty zero scope for growth.
Oh yeah, Canberra is also a stupid, pointless, freezing, soulless arsehole of a town. In my humble opinion of course
Sounds like most of NZ, to be fair. Outside of Auckland, of course.
A transplanted Canberra-Queanbeyan would be the biggest city in NZ.
Outside of Auckland, of course.
-
@Kiap yes but those shitholes have good rugby teams
Outside of Auckland of course
-
@mariner4life Even the Aucks have a passable team ;–)
But that's not the criterion, is it?
If you purely chopped the weakest rugby teams, the Sunwolves, Kings, Rebels, et al., would all be out before the Ponies - not that the Brumbies are actually going.
-
@Kiap said in Super Rugby News:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Super Rugby News:
But that doesn't take away that Canberra is a miniscule market with pretty zero scope for growth.
Oh yeah, Canberra is also a stupid, pointless, freezing, soulless arsehole of a town. In my humble opinion of course
Sounds like most of NZ, to be fair. Outside of Auckland, of course.
A transplanted Canberra-Queanbeyan would be the biggest city in NZ.
Outside of Auckland, of course.
That's not the issue. The issue is that an Aus team has to be cut and a decision has to be made about which one should get the arse. NZ has nothing to do with it.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Super Rugby News:
That's not the issue. The issue is that an Aus team has to be cut and a decision has to be made about which one should get the arse. NZ has nothing to do with it.
I'm just rebuffung your humble opinions.
But, yes, it's an ARU issue even though they are trying to "hide behind SANZAAR" at the moment. It might all end up being too hard for the ARU, though.
Super Rugby as we know it is dead anyway. All that's happening now are attempts to salvage something ... anything ... get to the end of the present broadcast deal.
-
@Kiap said in Super Rugby News:
Super Rugby as we know it is dead anyway.
I'm starting to think they should go back to the future and implement a Champions Cup style arrangement from the best of the NPC/ Currie Cup/ NRC.
-
@Kiap said in Super Rugby News:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Super Rugby News:
That's not the issue. The issue is that an Aus team has to be cut and a decision has to be made about which one should get the arse. NZ has nothing to do with it.
I'm just rebuffung your humble opinions.
But, yes, it's an ARU issue even though they are trying to "hide behind SANZAAR" at the moment. It might all end up being too hard for the ARU, though.
Super Rugby as we know it is dead anyway. All that's happening now are attempts to salvage something ... anything ... get to the end of the present broadcast deal.
Fair enough. Did I mention I'm not a fan of the place.
I don't know what's going to happen. What do South Africans honestly think of the whole thing?
-
-
Jonathan Faauli (Chiefs) has been cited for an alleged dangerous tackle.
-
@Stargazer Luatua level, so should be more than 4 weeks suspension.
-
Similar in height of tackle but it wasn't late, and it was on a player who handled the ball. Luatua just smoked TNW with a high shot off the ball.
-
@Tim said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer Luatua level, so should be more than 4 weeks suspension.
I haven't seen the official text of the citing, so not sure about what the entry-level will be. If it's Luatua level offending - as you say - then it will be a mid-entry point of 6 weeks. If he shows early remorse, combined with his clean record (the same reasons used for deducting two weeks in Luatua's case), then it would be 4 weeks. Just like Luatua. There may, however, in Faauli's case be different/more reasons for deduction (like his relative inexperience - 4 SR caps). We'll know tomorrow.
