Super Rugby News
-
@KiwiMurph Alan Jones is a raving fuckwit. What's the point in bringing a bloke on if you're not going to listen to him?
-
@antipodean I actually thought Clyne came across well considering the circumstances (he was also impressive on Kick and Chase a Fox Rugby Show last night). Jones is almost a satire of himself - a walking shock jock stereotype.
-
Jesus fucking christ, trying to listen to that interview turned my brain into goo. Alan Jones is a raging fuckwit. First, he bitches and moans about Australian rugby propping up Japan, failing to see the irony in that when his big grand idea is a trans-tasman competiton. Second, he bitches and moans about the expansion to 18 teams as if the Sunwolves, Jaguares and Kings are the reason Australian rugby doesn't have the depth to support five teams. Third, he talks about SANZAAR as if Australia gets to call all the shots. There's plenty of other idiotic shit in there but I couldn't listen to any more.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:
ARU Chairman Cameron Clyne interviewed by former Wallabies coach turned shock jock Alan Jones this morning
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?
-
@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
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 .
-
@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.
-
-
@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
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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
-
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...
-
@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. -
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
Stuff