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. -
@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.
-
https://melbournerebels.com/2017/04/14/melbourne-rebels-statement-2/
Rebels are not going down without a fight. This could get nasty.
-
Bit of a funny statement really. They repeatedly point out the fact that the ARU can't "chop or cut" the rebels but done really say that they have the right to stay in the comp. then it gets a bit bitchy about expansion, format and revenue. Even suggesting playing games in the internationsl window. Im sure they would love that but can you imagine the Crusaders for example playing without any of it's ABs? They would need about 20 new players.
What a mess.
-
The key point in the statement is this:
*MRRU notes, and is very disappointed to hear and read statements that the board and senior management of the ARU did not believe for many years in the 5 team model and did not believe that model was financially viable. MRRU notes that this concern was not conveyed to Imperium Sports Management prior to its acquisition of MRRU despite the full board and management of the ARU having the opportunity to do so.
Patently through no fault of our own MRRU has suffered significant damage (financial, reputational, commercial and personal) by the ARU’s handling of this whole process and its unnecessary public statements and actions. Given these actions MRRU has notified the ARU of its intention to seek compensation and at this time has reserved all rights.
:::*
Sounds to me like the owner of the Rebels is maneuvering into position for a misrepresentation lawsuit against the ARU. If the ARU had concerns about the financial stability of the Rebels (and the competition in general) but did not share these at the time they sold the Rebels to Andrew Cox, then they could be in trouble.
My take from reading this statement is that he wants a big payout.
-
NMS
-
-
@booboo said in Super Rugby News:
@Billy-Tell said in Super Rugby News:
NMS
What up with Nehe?
All Black Nehe Milner-Skudder battling the clock in race for Lions series
The injury bug hasn't left Hurricanes back Nehe Milner-Skudder as his struggles to recover from his latest setback have hit a roadblock, leaving his hopes of an All Blacks return against the British & Irish Lions in doubt. After a breakthrough year in 2015 which included a World Cup win with the All Blacks and a starring role in a Hurricanes side which hosted the Super Rugby final, Milner-Skudder has hardly touched the ball since, sitting out 2016 with a shoulder injury and then breaking a bone in his foot last month against the Chiefs. Hurricanes coach Chris Boyd has told NZME that Milner-Skudder's slow recovery could jeopardize his hopes of an All Blacks return in June. "I don't think he would have played an awful amount of rugby, before they pick the All Blacks to play the British and Irish Lions," Boyd said."Whether that's the preparation that the All Blacks want for that, it depends what sort of back three they're looking for and who else is fit, because there have been a couple of dings in that space. "I think [Milner-Skudder] will be available, but he won't have played a whole lot of rugby." Milner-Skudder is tentatively scheduled to return in three weeks against Stormers on May 5, but Boyd said that timeframe may have been a bit ambitious. "The solidification of the bone in his foot is slow, it's a low blood-flow area, so it's slow. "It's one of those ones that he's worked incredibly hard to keep fit and strong and healthy in other ways, but he's got a wound that's not helping him at the moment." The All Blacks side for the Lions series is set to be named in the first week of June, leaving Milner-Skudder, at best, five games to prove his form and fitness. -
Timani cited for allegedly kicking Rory Arnold (Brumbies)
-
But there was a price to pay for Chris Boyd's defending champions who improved to 28 points, and third in the tight Kiwi conference, with their sixth victory from seven matches this season.
Lock Michael Fatialofa picked up a serious knee injury early in the contest, and Boyd admitted afterwards he was resigned to his regular second-row starter facing an extended period on the sidelines.
"It doesn't look good," Boyd said. "We'll have to wait and see what the medical staff come up with, but he's pretty sore. It's either a kneecap or ligament − either way it doesn't look great.
"We've already got Sam Lousi dinged in that space, and James Blackwell to come back. We're getting a little thin but we're still OK."
Vaea Fifita's return off the bench on Saturday night from an ankle injury sustained at the Brisbane Tens is timely, and the talented utility forward shapes as the logical cover in Fatialofa's likely absence.
Boyd also confirmed he wasn't anticipating All Black hooker Dane Coles returning from his calf injury this week to face the Brumbies in their short-turnaround clash against the Brumbies in Napier on Friday.
(...)
"Colesy may be back for the Brumbies but I probably doubt it." -
Four-week suspension for Timani
The SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee has accepted a guilty plea from Timani for contravening Law 10.4(m) Any other acts which are contrary to good sportsmanship, after he was cited during the Super Rugby match. Timani has been suspended from all forms of the game for four weeks, up to and including Saturday 13 May 2017."With respect to sanction the Foul Play Review Committee deemed the act of foul play, which involved an intentional, but glancing, strike to an opponent's head by the Player's leg, merited a mid range entry point of eight weeks. However, taking into account mitigating factors including the Player's excellent Judicial record, his on-field apology to the opposing player, his remorse and his early guilty plea, the Foul Play Review Committee reduced the suspension to 4 weeks."
-
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
his on-field apology to the opposing player, his remorse
Didn't look that way to me... he seemed to think even the yellow was unfair because the other guy started it.
