• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Super Rugby News

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Sports Talk
5.2k Posts 139 Posters 1.4m Views
Super Rugby News
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • canefanC Online
    canefanC Online
    canefan
    replied to KiwiMurph on last edited by
    #1619

    @KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:

    ARU Chairman Cameron Clyne interviewed by former Wallabies coach turned shock jock Alan Jones this morning

    Ross Geddes

    Future of super rugby

    Future of super rugby

    Alan is joined in the studio by  A.R.U chairman Cameron Clyne to talk about the future of the Super rugby competition

    Channelling his inner Murray Deaker was he?

    jeggaJ 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • jeggaJ Offline
    jeggaJ Offline
    jegga
    replied to canefan on last edited by
    #1620

    @canefan said in Super Rugby News:

    @KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:

    ARU Chairman Cameron Clyne interviewed by former Wallabies coach turned shock jock Alan Jones this morning

    Ross Geddes

    Future of super rugby

    Future of super rugby

    Alan is joined in the studio by  A.R.U chairman Cameron Clyne to talk about the future of the Super rugby competition

    Channelling his inner Murray Deaker was he?

    I wouldn't be surprised if he'd channeled Murray Deaker inside him.

    You'd think Alan Jones time of being someone who's opinions people gave a fuck about would have finished a long time ago .

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • BovidaeB Offline
    BovidaeB Offline
    Bovidae
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #1621

    @antipodean I was going to listen to the interview but there's little point. Jones has an agenda and it's obvious that the contrasting way he treated both guests (Sauer and Clyne) reflected that.

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • antipodeanA Online
    antipodeanA Online
    antipodean
    replied to Bovidae on last edited by
    #1622

    @Bovidae talk back radio doesn't really work if you permit people to talk back.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • antipodeanA Online
    antipodeanA Online
    antipodean
    wrote on last edited by
    #1623

    This is interesting

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #1624

    @antipodean said in Super Rugby News:

    This is interesting

    I can believe that. When I was there I came across a lot of rugby folk that were very big on their club and the Wallabies but didn't connect with Super Rugby much at all

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • boobooB Offline
    boobooB Offline
    booboo
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #1625

    @taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:

    Alan Jones made a valid point this morning...the ARU has allowed SANZAAR to make them ditch a team, while retaining the Sunwolves...Aus have the ability to veto this as well apparently.

    I don't think there is any doubt Aus need to cull one team, but what happens from now going forward will be interesting.

    "Alan Jones" and "valid point" makes me think of stopped watches.

    But what that reads to me is, if Straya could have vetoed it, they are happy and actually want to ditch a team.

    The more I think about it the more I want the Force retained.

    Think the Brumbles and the Rabble should form some sort of merged entity.

    taniwharugbyT 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • boobooB Offline
    boobooB Offline
    booboo
    replied to mariner4life on last edited by
    #1626

    @mariner4life said in Super Rugby News:

    @taniwharugby all reports i have read say that the ARU actually want to cull a team, it's their decision, they simply can't afford the 5.

    They aren't being pushed by SANZAAR, the NZRU aren't bullying them, the need to cut their costs, and that means one team needs to go. Of course the narrative on social media is very different.

    The fact it's a decision made by the ARU will make it even more messy if the Force (or the Rebels) and the players union decide to get militant.

    What he said...

    ... just realised I'm three days late getting back to this thread.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to booboo on last edited by
    #1627

    @booboo I agree, they cannot afford a team, but the point that Aus are losing a team but sunwolves remain is valid IMO

    Hopefully without spreading thier talent so thin, they'll start to get stronger again...I think the rebels should be canned too

    UncoU 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • jeggaJ Offline
    jeggaJ Offline
    jegga
    wrote on last edited by
    #1628

    Super 12 was the best format....

    Ffs

    alt text

    Stuff
    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    wrote on last edited by
    #1629

    and yet we have been told regularly it has been the SA's pushing for expansion to accomodate thier massive player base and as they provide a substantial portion of the income, they get what they want...

    jeggaJ 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • jeggaJ Offline
    jeggaJ Offline
    jegga
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #1630

    @taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:

    and yet we have been told regularly it has been the SA's pushing for expansion to accomodate thier massive player base and as they provide a substantial portion of the income, they get what they want...

    Also every couple of years they'd drop stories into the press about how they were going to join the NH comp because the time zone was better or similarly contrived reasons.
    The stories normally came out when the money from supperugby or more teams being added was up for negotiation which was just a coincidence I'm sure.

    S 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • UncoU Offline
    UncoU Offline
    Unco
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #1631

    @taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:

    @booboo I agree, they cannot afford a team, but the point that Aus are losing a team but sunwolves remain is valid IMO

    Hopefully without spreading thier talent so thin, they'll start to get stronger again...I think the rebels should be canned too

    It's only a "good point" if the funds that're going into the Sunwolves came out of Australia's share of the broadcasting rights but going by Clyne's reaction to that, it doesn't. They're not getting any less money than they were before the Sunwolves joined. So at that point it's just protectionist nonsense, pointing to a different team that pays for itself as a distraction while plugging your ears and screaming LALALALALA when anyone brings up your own problems.

    taniwharugbyT 1 Reply Last reply
    4
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to Unco on last edited by
    #1632

    @Unco as I said, I, as in me, think it is a valid point when you consider they are dropping an AUssie team while keeping a Japanese team, in the interest of Aussie rugby, that aspect is not good, but the fact Aussie rugby cant sustain 5 teams, probably even 4 is a struggle at the moment, then the point is irrelevant, they could keep a team from Mongolia and it wont affect Aussie rugby.

    Its a shame Japanese rugby isnt all in for super rugby and have all thier best players contracted though.

    UncoU 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • UncoU Offline
    UncoU Offline
    Unco
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #1633

    @taniwharugby I mean, sure, it doesn't look good but looks and facts don't always line up and the fact is, they're completely irrelevant to Aussie rugby's actual problems. If anything I'd say the Sunwolves are actually in Aussie rugby's interests because if that expansion ends up paying off, the ARU (and NZRU and SARU) will be the ones who get more money out of it.

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • antipodeanA Online
    antipodeanA Online
    antipodean
    replied to Unco on last edited by
    #1634

    @Unco That's right. People are getting confused as if SANZAAR worked out that there was an optimum number of teams for the competition and then decided which unions should do the culling. The ARU merely had to decide how many teams would be more beneficial, so they've come to the conclusion that they should drop one. SARU have come to the conclusion they should drop two.

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • S Offline
    S Offline
    SidBarret
    replied to jegga on last edited by
    #1635

    @jegga said in Super Rugby News:

    @taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:

    and yet we have been told regularly it has been the SA's pushing for expansion to accomodate thier massive player base and as they provide a substantial portion of the income, they get what they want...

    Also every couple of years they'd drop stories into the press about how they were going to join the NH comp because the time zone was better or similarly contrived reasons.
    The stories normally came out when the money from supperugby or more teams being added was up for negotiation which was just a coincidence I'm sure.

    Also coincidental was that they always chose the ozzie media to leak this news (up until 2013 at least)

    Anyway, I don't think people have understood the South African position re super rugby very well.

    SA isn't as married to the idea of Super Rugby as their partners. Australia and New Zealand seem to be happy with consolidating all their professional rugby in Super Rugby, whereas the South Africans have (or at least should have) seen it as part of the overall structure. Rugby in South Africa has wider footprint than in Australia and any expansion was more about giving existing markets a seat at the table rather than creating new markets (which is the case with Australia). The problem is with South Africa is that places like Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth are to large to be left out, but financially too weak to support a Super Rugby franchise, which in turn has meant that the other markets have been subsidizing them, weakening the rest.

    The culling of the two teams is probably the right step, but to work for SA two other changes will have to be made. Firstly Super Rugby needs to return to being an international competition with the primary focus being on playing the Australian and New Zealand teams. Derbies are great but it gets stale when teams keep playing the same opposition right through the season.

    Secondly the Super season needs to be shortened to allow us to play our derbies in our own competition. A competition where teams like the Cheetahs and Kings can compete with the big boys. A NPC type semi-pro comp isn't enough, we need a real pro comp to develop players, coaches and administrators and to maintain the national footprint.

    Neither of these changes will be acceptable to the Australian Rugby Union because their market is different. They need the derbies (and friendly timezones) and the longer season to remain relevant in their market.

    What the ultimate solution will be, I don't know, but the 2014 compromise didn't work.

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • DamoD Offline
    DamoD Offline
    Damo
    wrote on last edited by
    #1636

    https://melbournerebels.com/2017/04/14/melbourne-rebels-statement-2/

    Rebels are not going down without a fight. This could get nasty.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • C Offline
    C Offline
    Crash
    wrote on last edited by
    #1637

    Buckle up baby, its gonna be bumpy ride, lol

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • NepiaN Offline
    NepiaN Offline
    Nepia
    wrote on last edited by
    #1638

    Damn, who wrote the second sentence of that statement? Some type of punctuation might be nice.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0

Super Rugby News
Sports Talk
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.