Planet Rugby Forum

wamberal99 wrote:

RandomNavigat0r wrote:Na dont think he is one bit. Its pretty clear who are embarassing themselves in this thread. When are you gonna post more fansite G&GR garbage to back up your assertions
Face it Grevious has been ragdolling your ass all through this thread, he is coming at it without a state bias, you just come across like some RA shill.

You are a deadset loon. Semi-literate, and with nothing at all that is positive to add to this topic, all you can do is attack people and suck up to Grievous (that is how he spells his name, by the way). Why don't you just fark off back to the cesspool that you have dragged yourself out of.

Fortune favours the brave': Hamish McLennan bullish on rugby's future
Georgina Robinson
By Georgina Robinson
May 16, 2020 — 6.00am

Hamish McLennan had been approached for a potential director’s role on the Rugby Australia board weeks before coronavirus brought the world to a standstill and triggered one of the most unedifying power struggles in rugby’s history.

He presented to the current board and Super Rugby chairs just two days after the World Health Organisation gave the virus its official name, COVID-19. By the time his name made it into the public domain, in early March, the enormity of the pandemic was dawning on health and government officials.

But at that time RA’s biggest problem was still that it might have questions to answer on poor representation of women at board level if McLennan and others linked to the role, including Peter Wiggs, Brett Godfrey and a trio of Wallabies, were elected. That changed fast over the next two weeks. By March 15, Super Rugby had ceased and two home Tests against Ireland in July looked shaky.

The uncertainty was enough for the board to delay signing off on the 2019 accounts in line with provisions dictating they state whether they are aware of circumstances that could affect the status of the business as a going concern.

But when then-chief executive Raelene Castle decided to withhold the accounts, unaudited as they were, from member unions, players and the public, at RA’s March 30 annual general meeting, all hell broke loose.


The players union joined forces with a group of former Australian captains to demand change at the top of RA. They began working quietly in the background but just after Castle and new director Wiggs had secured a 60 per cent cut to player salaries until the end of September, they went public with their campaign, publishing a letter in The Australian demanding the current executive ‘‘stand aside’’ for the good of the game.

McLennan meanwhile, already being touted as chairman material to replace Cameron Clyne and his interim replacement Paul McLean, was watching from the sidelines.

‘‘At times I was quite perplexed,’’ McLennan told the Herald. ‘‘Even though a lot of that commentary comes from a place of passion, what it has done is divide the game even further and damage key stakeholders, whether it be sponsors or commercial partners. That’s why it’s important we unify the game and we all get aligned. Provided we can do that then we have a really good shot at making it work.’’

The former Ten boss, right-hand man to Rupert Murdoch and current deputy chair of $100 billion fund manager Magellan, must relish a challenge.
He takes the helm of the sport at a time when it looks like an unbankable prospect. The organisation is broke, the Wallabies are seventh in the world, Super Rugby is a maligned product and bad timing and poor relationship management have left the game with no broadcast partner and no friends in those notoriously macho circles. Oh, and a group of the game’s biggest names are waging open warfare on the organisation.

As Richmond Football Club president Peggy O’Neal observed of the Tigers’ own internecine battles in a recent ABC interview: ‘‘We went from ‘eat ’em alive’ to ‘eat our own’’’.

‘‘It’s a big challenge but a massive opportunity if we get it right,’’ McLennan said. ‘‘It’s a great sport, it’s a global game and for many years I’ve been looking at rugby from the sidelines. When I was asked to interview to join the board I thought ‘I can make a difference’, so why not jump in? Fortune favours the brave, as they say.

‘‘I’ve been in and around sports all of my life from a commercial and media perspective, so I think that ‘brand Wallaby’ is really powerful and I think rugby is a very powerful brand too. I think we can do a better job of how we can promote the game.’’

He does not officially take over from McLean until June 15 but made his priorities clear in his first public comments on Friday. Those priorities are: convince incoming Wallabies coach Dave Rennie that taking the Australia job was not as risky a move as it has looked in recent weeks; cut RA’s cloth to allow the organisation to live within its means in coming years; extend an olive branch to Foxtel boss Patrick Delany; placate the agitated captains; and make Super Rugby watchable again.

Or ditch it all together. McLennan, who signed off on cricket’s trailblazing Big Bash League as boss of Ten, was eager to confirm that both options would be considered.

‘‘We absolutely have to modify the rules and make it a differentiated product for television,’’ he said. ‘‘I think the broadcasters will possibly re-engage if we do that. The scrums currently take too long and we want more playing time. The thing with the Big Bash was it appealed to a wider audience, including kids and mums and families, and I think that’s important that we find ways to do that with Super Rugby.’’

wamberal99 wrote:

RandomNavigat0r wrote:Na dont think he is one bit. Its pretty clear who are embarassing themselves in this thread. When are you gonna post more fansite G&GR garbage to back up your assertions
Face it Grevious has been ragdolling your ass all through this thread, he is coming at it without a state bias, you just come across like some RA shill.

You are a deadset loon. Semi-literate, and with nothing at all that is positive to add to this topic, all you can do is attack people and suck up to Grievous (that is how he spells his name, by the way). Why don't you just fark off back to the cesspool that you have dragged yourself out of.

UncleFB wrote:

wamberal99 wrote:

RandomNavigat0r wrote:Na dont think he is one bit. Its pretty clear who are embarassing themselves in this thread. When are you gonna post more fansite G&GR garbage to back up your assertions
Face it Grevious has been ragdolling your ass all through this thread, he is coming at it without a state bias, you just come across like some RA shill.

You are a deadset loon. Semi-literate, and with nothing at all that is positive to add to this topic, all you can do is attack people and suck up to Grievous (that is how he spells his name, by the way). Why don't you just fark off back to the cesspool that you have dragged yourself out of.

I just checked back into this thread and I think you're being a bit hard on RandomNavigator - clearly his three posts in a row diatribe on the previous page is evidence that he's actually having a stroke.

CrazyIslander wrote:The NZRU will say no to that. End of story.

Ali's Choice wrote:This thread has certainly heated up a bit over the past few days.

I can't really figure what people are arguing about? - aside from bazzamacca who is just trying to start fights with other posters. You are all Australian Rugby fans who are passionate about the game. You all want what's best for the game in this country. You all agree that the game was struggling in Australia pre-COVID and is unfortunately in an even worse place at this moment.You all want a future Super Rugby comp to feature more content for domestic viewers. And you all want the most lucrative broadcast deal possible.

So really, you all want the same things and just have some divergent views in terms of who is responsible for the challenges Rugby faces in Australia, and what is the best course of action to take in the short term. Although I'm sure if RA announced a 6 team domestic SR comp today, featuring the Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Rebels, Force and either Fiji or a new team based in Western Sydney which played home games at Bankwest Stadium, you'd all be generally supportive of the concept.

Personally, I think COVID-19 has presented RA with a rare opportunity to recalibrate the game here in Australia. Super Rugby was a dead comp walking, and the pandemic has simply hastened its death. That's a great thing. Crisis creates opportunities and COVID-19 has given RA the chance to start from scratch.

A new domestic comp might start off slowly, but with recognisable teams and the right branding and marketing it's popularity would increase over time. That's compared to the old SR format, which was suffering an irreversible decline in popularity every year. Nothing was going to save the old comp because it's format was fatally flawed. Australians fans won't stay up till 3am to watch sports, and they never warmed to the South African touring teams either.

Personally I think a domestic based SR comp in Australia in 2020 will lead into a combined Trans Tasman comp in 2021. Both NZ and Australia are too small to go it alone, and like the Celtic nations in the North our best option is to be part of a combined 2nd tier comp. A Trans tasman SR competition. The South African franchises can f**k off and play in the disease riddled NH, no-one watched them play anyway and they won't be missed.

Slim 293 wrote:

grievous wrote:

Slim 293 wrote:

grievous wrote:

Slim 293 wrote:Fox Sports requires content to fill multiple channels, and outside of the big 3 sports - Cricket, NRL and AFL, who all have their own dedicated channels, they need live sports to fill that airtime, bring in sponsors and sell subscriptions...

Yes, rugby has been flailing for many years now, but it still brings in more viewers than most of other sports*, and rugby attracts some high end advertising dollars.

The idea that Fox Sports don't need, or want rugby, despite everything they've done over the last few months to suggest otherwise... is just f**king idiotic.

* The A League is doing worse than Super Rugby in terms of viewership - on one weekend the ratings for all 3 A League matches combined were only slightly bigger than the Sunwolves v Rebels game.

What a lot of babble. Not one fact, quote some stats Mr scoup

Oh, OK...

TV ratings Saturday February 1, 2020

Super Rugby on Fox Sports
Crusaders v Waratahs 66,000
Sunwolves v Rebels 39,000

A-League on Fox Sports
Adelaide v Melbourne City 17,000
Newcastle v Western United 15,000
Perth v Melbourne Victory 15,000

https://www.mediaweek.com.au/tv-ratings ... ry-1-2020/


Not one fact... cherry picked...

Double bullseye.

Against what champ....compare those with AFL and league, even netball, A league bullseye or browneye?

Maybe, just maybe, trying reading the posts you're responding to... you are embarrassing yourself.

merlin the happy pig wrote:Would we keep The Rugby Championship?
The ABs need to be playing top level rugby every year to stay at or near the top, with the Six Nations being set in stone it kind of doesn't leave a lot of choice.

Ali's Choice wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:Would we keep The Rugby Championship?
The ABs need to be playing top level rugby every year to stay at or near the top, with the Six Nations being set in stone it kind of doesn't leave a lot of choice.

I haven't heard anyone talk of dismantling the RC. It's highly profitable, pretty much subsidising every other level of Rugby across all the SANZAAR nations.

The changes clearly need to be at SR level.

grievous wrote:So we have a new CEO, McLennan who will take over in June.
Time enough for some shredding to be done by McLean.

Lets see if he can save the game.

Fortune favours the brave': Hamish McLennan bullish on rugby's future
Georgina Robinson
By Georgina Robinson
May 16, 2020 — 6.00am

Hamish McLennan had been approached for a potential director’s role on the Rugby Australia board weeks before coronavirus brought the world to a standstill and triggered one of the most unedifying power struggles in rugby’s history.

He presented to the current board and Super Rugby chairs just two days after the World Health Organisation gave the virus its official name, COVID-19. By the time his name made it into the public domain, in early March, the enormity of the pandemic was dawning on health and government officials.

But at that time RA’s biggest problem was still that it might have questions to answer on poor representation of women at board level if McLennan and others linked to the role, including Peter Wiggs, Brett Godfrey and a trio of Wallabies, were elected. That changed fast over the next two weeks. By March 15, Super Rugby had ceased and two home Tests against Ireland in July looked shaky.

The uncertainty was enough for the board to delay signing off on the 2019 accounts in line with provisions dictating they state whether they are aware of circumstances that could affect the status of the business as a going concern.

But when then-chief executive Raelene Castle decided to withhold the accounts, unaudited as they were, from member unions, players and the public, at RA’s March 30 annual general meeting, all hell broke loose.


The players union joined forces with a group of former Australian captains to demand change at the top of RA. They began working quietly in the background but just after Castle and new director Wiggs had secured a 60 per cent cut to player salaries until the end of September, they went public with their campaign, publishing a letter in The Australian demanding the current executive ‘‘stand aside’’ for the good of the game.

McLennan meanwhile, already being touted as chairman material to replace Cameron Clyne and his interim replacement Paul McLean, was watching from the sidelines.

‘‘At times I was quite perplexed,’’ McLennan told the Herald. ‘‘Even though a lot of that commentary comes from a place of passion, what it has done is divide the game even further and damage key stakeholders, whether it be sponsors or commercial partners. That’s why it’s important we unify the game and we all get aligned. Provided we can do that then we have a really good shot at making it work.’’

The former Ten boss, right-hand man to Rupert Murdoch and current deputy chair of $100 billion fund manager Magellan, must relish a challenge.
He takes the helm of the sport at a time when it looks like an unbankable prospect. The organisation is broke, the Wallabies are seventh in the world, Super Rugby is a maligned product and bad timing and poor relationship management have left the game with no broadcast partner and no friends in those notoriously macho circles. Oh, and a group of the game’s biggest names are waging open warfare on the organisation.

As Richmond Football Club president Peggy O’Neal observed of the Tigers’ own internecine battles in a recent ABC interview: ‘‘We went from ‘eat ’em alive’ to ‘eat our own’’’.

‘‘It’s a big challenge but a massive opportunity if we get it right,’’ McLennan said. ‘‘It’s a great sport, it’s a global game and for many years I’ve been looking at rugby from the sidelines. When I was asked to interview to join the board I thought ‘I can make a difference’, so why not jump in? Fortune favours the brave, as they say.

‘‘I’ve been in and around sports all of my life from a commercial and media perspective, so I think that ‘brand Wallaby’ is really powerful and I think rugby is a very powerful brand too. I think we can do a better job of how we can promote the game.’’

He does not officially take over from McLean until June 15 but made his priorities clear in his first public comments on Friday. Those priorities are: convince incoming Wallabies coach Dave Rennie that taking the Australia job was not as risky a move as it has looked in recent weeks; cut RA’s cloth to allow the organisation to live within its means in coming years; extend an olive branch to Foxtel boss Patrick Delany; placate the agitated captains; and make Super Rugby watchable again.

Or ditch it all together. McLennan, who signed off on cricket’s trailblazing Big Bash League as boss of Ten, was eager to confirm that both options would be considered.

‘‘We absolutely have to modify the rules and make it a differentiated product for television,’’ he said. ‘‘I think the broadcasters will possibly re-engage if we do that. The scrums currently take too long and we want more playing time. The thing with the Big Bash was it appealed to a wider audience, including kids and mums and families, and I think that’s important that we find ways to do that with Super Rugby.’’

Ali's Choice wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:Would we keep The Rugby Championship?
The ABs need to be playing top level rugby every year to stay at or near the top, with the Six Nations being set in stone it kind of doesn't leave a lot of choice.

I haven't heard anyone talk of dismantling the RC. It's highly profitable, pretty much subsidising every other level of Rugby across all the SANZAAR nations.

The changes clearly need to be at SR level.

jos wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:Would we keep The Rugby Championship?
The ABs need to be playing top level rugby every year to stay at or near the top, with the Six Nations being set in stone it kind of doesn't leave a lot of choice.

I haven't heard anyone talk of dismantling the RC. It's highly profitable, pretty much subsidising every other level of Rugby across all the SANZAAR nations.

The changes clearly need to be at SR level.

So you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You can't ditch South Africa, and then take them back when it suits you.
If you let South Africa out of Super Rugby, they will go North totally. RC will be over, and we would have a 7th Nations more rich and powerful than ever.

jos wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:Would we keep The Rugby Championship?
The ABs need to be playing top level rugby every year to stay at or near the top, with the Six Nations being set in stone it kind of doesn't leave a lot of choice.

I haven't heard anyone talk of dismantling the RC. It's highly profitable, pretty much subsidising every other level of Rugby across all the SANZAAR nations.

The changes clearly need to be at SR level.

So you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You can't ditch South Africa, and then take them back when it suits you.
If you let South Africa out of Super Rugby, they will go North totally. RC will be over, and we would have a 7th Nations more rich and powerful than ever.

Thomas wrote:

jos wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:Would we keep The Rugby Championship?
The ABs need to be playing top level rugby every year to stay at or near the top, with the Six Nations being set in stone it kind of doesn't leave a lot of choice.

I haven't heard anyone talk of dismantling the RC. It's highly profitable, pretty much subsidising every other level of Rugby across all the SANZAAR nations.

The changes clearly need to be at SR level.

So you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You can't ditch South Africa, and then take them back when it suits you.
If you let South Africa out of Super Rugby, they will go North totally. RC will be over, and we would have a 7th Nations more rich and powerful than ever.

Sure you can. You can ditch the Super Rugby teams because there's nothing gained by 2am matches between a NZ or Australian against a SA team in some backwards shithole in the Republic. The RC is a genuine competition that brings in dollars.

Ali's Choice wrote:

jos wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:Would we keep The Rugby Championship?
The ABs need to be playing top level rugby every year to stay at or near the top, with the Six Nations being set in stone it kind of doesn't leave a lot of choice.

I haven't heard anyone talk of dismantling the RC. It's highly profitable, pretty much subsidising every other level of Rugby across all the SANZAAR nations.

The changes clearly need to be at SR level.

So you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You can't ditch South Africa, and then take them back when it suits you.
If you let South Africa out of Super Rugby, they will go North totally. RC will be over, and we would have a 7th Nations more rich and powerful than ever.

That might happen one day, but I can't see the 6N admitting SA anytime soon. There have been many discussions and threads about this in the past and it almost always ends with Welsh, Irish and Scottish posters telling South African posters to f**k off and find their own revenue streams.

jos wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

jos wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:Would we keep The Rugby Championship?
The ABs need to be playing top level rugby every year to stay at or near the top, with the Six Nations being set in stone it kind of doesn't leave a lot of choice.

I haven't heard anyone talk of dismantling the RC. It's highly profitable, pretty much subsidising every other level of Rugby across all the SANZAAR nations.

The changes clearly need to be at SR level.

So you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You can't ditch South Africa, and then take them back when it suits you.
If you let South Africa out of Super Rugby, they will go North totally. RC will be over, and we would have a 7th Nations more rich and powerful than ever.

That might happen one day, but I can't see the 6N admitting SA anytime soon. There have been many discussions and threads about this in the past and it almost always ends with Welsh, Irish and Scottish posters telling South African posters to f**k off and find their own revenue streams.

They would be accepted nearly as soon as you would ditch them. Irish, Welsh and Scottish fans can say what they want, no one will ask them their advice. The 2 big markets are England and France. The RFU has always try to bring the SARU. And now FFR's president is Laporte. This guy only think about money, so will not stop a change like that, au contraire. We would have the 3 biggest rugby market together, so no NH union would oppose earning more money.

CrazyIslander wrote: They have equal votes with England and France.

How haa the Cheetahs/Kings experiment going? That would give an idea how it would go.

jos wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote: They have equal votes with England and France.

How haa the Cheetahs/Kings experiment going? That would give an idea how it would go.

So fans have a vote now? Only Unions have, and they want more money especially now. By the way without England and France, the 6th nations would be nothing financially. For the Cheetahs/Kings experiment of course it's not a success. First it's the 2 worse South African teams, then they play in a league with the less money in NH, and finally this league isn't even taken seriously by the celtic Unions. And I don't even talk about the fact these 2 teams can't qualify to the European Champions Cup. Now in my opinion the South African should follow the English and French model: its own proper league, then their best teams playing the Champions Cup and finally a 7th nations. Like that they would earn more money. More than now and of course more than with the new idea from Australian and Kiwi fans.

CrazyIslander wrote:

jos wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote: They have equal votes with England and France.

How haa the Cheetahs/Kings experiment going? That would give an idea how it would go.

So fans have a vote now? Only Unions have, and they want more money especially now. By the way without England and France, the 6th nations would be nothing financially. For the Cheetahs/Kings experiment of course it's not a success. First it's the 2 worse South African teams, then they play in a league with the less money in NH, and finally this league isn't even taken seriously by the celtic Unions. And I don't even talk about the fact these 2 teams can't qualify to the European Champions Cup. Now in my opinion the South African should follow the English and French model: its own proper league, then their best teams playing the Champions Cup and finally a 7th nations. Like that they would earn more money. More than now and of course more than with the new idea from Australian and Kiwi fans.

Good luck getting the 6Ns to agree to including the Boks.

As for Saffas in the Champions Cup it won't happen. Those countries are already squabbling over money I doubt they want another mouth to feed.

Thomas wrote:

jos wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:Would we keep The Rugby Championship?
The ABs need to be playing top level rugby every year to stay at or near the top, with the Six Nations being set in stone it kind of doesn't leave a lot of choice.

I haven't heard anyone talk of dismantling the RC. It's highly profitable, pretty much subsidising every other level of Rugby across all the SANZAAR nations.

The changes clearly need to be at SR level.

So you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You can't ditch South Africa, and then take them back when it suits you.
If you let South Africa out of Super Rugby, they will go North totally. RC will be over, and we would have a 7th Nations more rich and powerful than ever.

Sure you can. You can ditch the Super Rugby teams because there's nothing gained by 2am matches between a NZ or Australian against a SA team in some backwards shithole in the Republic. The RC is a genuine competition that brings in dollars.

Brumbieman wrote:It seems pretty simple - let the SA SR sides play in Euro championships, NZ and Aus have a 10 team home and away round robin comp, top 4 finals series.

Straight into June NH tour, then RC from July onward .

Japan and the PI's are in the right timezone to add to that trans tasman comp, so it could be expanded out to 12 teams in the near future.

Everyone loved Super 12 and 14, it just went to shit when the conference system was started.

Brumbieman wrote:It seems pretty simple - let the SA SR sides play in Euro championships, NZ and Aus have a 10 team home and away round robin comp, top 4 finals series.

Straight into June NH tour, then RC from July onward .

Japan and the PI's are in the right timezone to add to that trans tasman comp, so it could be expanded out to 12 teams in the near future.

Everyone loved Super 12 and 14, it just went to shit when the conference system was started.

Ali's Choice wrote:

Brumbieman wrote:It seems pretty simple - let the SA SR sides play in Euro championships, NZ and Aus have a 10 team home and away round robin comp, top 4 finals series.

Straight into June NH tour, then RC from July onward .

Japan and the PI's are in the right timezone to add to that trans tasman comp, so it could be expanded out to 12 teams in the near future.

Everyone loved Super 12 and 14, it just went to shit when the conference system was started.

Pretty much. I think this year NZ and Aust will only have the option of running truncated domestic comps, given that we are almost in June, but these domestic 'Super Rugby' comps could be an important segue into a Trans Tasman comp in 2021.

South African franchise teams are already playing in NH club comps, so it seems like a no-brainer that they would explore that option. Much better timezone for South African Rugby fans and they may be good enough in 'easy rugby' to actually win some silverware.

I look forward to NH fans reactions to 'homer' South African referees. No doubt they'll be totally cool with 12-1 penalty counts against their touring teams.

tubbyj wrote:Dude in all seriousness if Super rugby's troubles have taught anything over the last 10 years is that for a successful competition to continue to prosper and be relevant it must maintain its integrity. The amount of short term financial gain of including SA would not offset the risk of long term stagnation or worse, financial loss for the Six nations. Look no further than the re-election of Beaumont over Pichot for confirmation of this.

Ali's Choice wrote:

Brumbieman wrote:It seems pretty simple - let the SA SR sides play in Euro championships, NZ and Aus have a 10 team home and away round robin comp, top 4 finals series.

Straight into June NH tour, then RC from July onward .

Japan and the PI's are in the right timezone to add to that trans tasman comp, so it could be expanded out to 12 teams in the near future.

Everyone loved Super 12 and 14, it just went to shit when the conference system was started.

Pretty much. I think this year NZ and Aust will only have the option of running truncated domestic comps, given that we are almost in June, but these domestic 'Super Rugby' comps could be an important segue into a Trans Tasman comp in 2021.

South African franchise teams are already playing in NH club comps, so it seems like a no-brainer that they would explore that option. Much better timezone for South African Rugby fans and they may be good enough in 'easy rugby' to actually win some silverware.

I look forward to NH fans reactions to 'homer' South African referees. No doubt they'll be totally cool with 12-1 penalty counts against their touring teams.

jos wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Brumbieman wrote:It seems pretty simple - let the SA SR sides play in Euro championships, NZ and Aus have a 10 team home and away round robin comp, top 4 finals series.

Straight into June NH tour, then RC from July onward .

Japan and the PI's are in the right timezone to add to that trans tasman comp, so it could be expanded out to 12 teams in the near future.

Everyone loved Super 12 and 14, it just went to shit when the conference system was started.

Pretty much. I think this year NZ and Aust will only have the option of running truncated domestic comps, given that we are almost in June, but these domestic 'Super Rugby' comps could be an important segue into a Trans Tasman comp in 2021.

South African franchise teams are already playing in NH club comps, so it seems like a no-brainer that they would explore that option. Much better timezone for South African Rugby fans and they may be good enough in 'easy rugby' to actually win some silverware.

I look forward to NH fans reactions to 'homer' South African referees. No doubt they'll be totally cool with 12-1 penalty counts against their touring teams.

As we weren't use to that in France with British referees in France. (even if it's not as worse as in the past)

jos wrote:

tubbyj wrote:Dude in all seriousness if Super rugby's troubles have taught anything over the last 10 years is that for a successful competition to continue to prosper and be relevant it must maintain its integrity. The amount of short term financial gain of including SA would not offset the risk of long term stagnation or worse, financial loss for the Six nations. Look no further than the re-election of Beaumont over Pichot for confirmation of this.

I don't know why you seems to think integrating one of most powerful nation of our sport, which by the way have enough fans and money to support its own rugby, could be a problem for the 6th nations in the future. During all the past years, they weren't a problem for your RC, in fact they bring more of your money. So why would it be different for us?

Ali's Choice wrote:

jos wrote:

tubbyj wrote:Dude in all seriousness if Super rugby's troubles have taught anything over the last 10 years is that for a successful competition to continue to prosper and be relevant it must maintain its integrity. The amount of short term financial gain of including SA would not offset the risk of long term stagnation or worse, financial loss for the Six nations. Look no further than the re-election of Beaumont over Pichot for confirmation of this.

I don't know why you seems to think integrating one of most powerful nation of our sport, which by the way have enough fans and money to support its own rugby, could be a problem for the 6th nations in the future. During all the past years, they weren't a problem for your RC, in fact they bring more of your money. So why would it be different for us?

A couple of points.

Firstly, South Africa joining the 6 has been discussed literally hundreds of times on this forum, and the general feedback from NH fans is that it would be problematic for them to join. I fully appreciate the fact that you firmly believe that their inclusion could happen quickly and easily, but this view is not shared by many other NH posters.

Secondly, South African posters have always boasted about how wealthy their union is, and how much money they bring into SANZAAR, but this has never been supported by facts. The reality is that South African pro players earn only a fraction of what their counterparts do in NZ and Australia, and right now South Africa is having a fire sale of its Super Rugby standard players to try and stave off bankruptcy, whilst NZ and Australia are planning for restarting domestic SR comps in the very near future.

grievous wrote:

jos wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Brumbieman wrote:It seems pretty simple - let the SA SR sides play in Euro championships, NZ and Aus have a 10 team home and away round robin comp, top 4 finals series.

Straight into June NH tour, then RC from July onward .

Japan and the PI's are in the right timezone to add to that trans tasman comp, so it could be expanded out to 12 teams in the near future.

Everyone loved Super 12 and 14, it just went to shit when the conference system was started.

Pretty much. I think this year NZ and Aust will only have the option of running truncated domestic comps, given that we are almost in June, but these domestic 'Super Rugby' comps could be an important segue into a Trans Tasman comp in 2021.

South African franchise teams are already playing in NH club comps, so it seems like a no-brainer that they would explore that option. Much better timezone for South African Rugby fans and they may be good enough in 'easy rugby' to actually win some silverware.

I look forward to NH fans reactions to 'homer' South African referees. No doubt they'll be totally cool with 12-1 penalty counts against their touring teams.

As we weren't use to that in France with British referees in France. (even if it's not as worse as in the past)

Can you fvck off this thread.

jos wrote:It would happen quickly IF you ditch them. If not, not so easily as World Rugby wouldn't like to risk destroying SH rugby. For the problems we could face nothing so serious.

Well of course if they don't have money, the debate is over, as we already supporting financially celtics nations, and they don't want anythig that could threat their income.

Ali's Choice wrote:

jos wrote:It would happen quickly IF you ditch them. If not, not so easily as World Rugby wouldn't like to risk destroying SH rugby. For the problems we could face nothing so serious.

Well of course if they don't have money, the debate is over, as we already supporting financially celtics nations, and they don't want anythig that could threat their income.

Why would NZ and Australia "ditch" SA from the highly profitable Rugby Championship? It's been you who has been trolling SH fans by taunting us over how poor our unions are and how quickly and easily the Springboks would be welcomed into the Six Nations. A view that is shared by very few other NH based posters.

Ali's Choice wrote:

jos wrote:It would happen quickly IF you ditch them. If not, not so easily as World Rugby wouldn't like to risk destroying SH rugby. For the problems we could face nothing so serious.

Well of course if they don't have money, the debate is over, as we already supporting financially celtics nations, and they don't want anythig that could threat their income.

Why would NZ and Australia "ditch" SA from the highly profitable Rugby Championship? It's been you who has been trolling SH fans by taunting us over how poor our unions are and how quickly and easily the Springboks would be welcomed into the Six Nations. A view that is shared by very few other NH based posters.

jos wrote:On this point we disagree. You seems to think you could ditch them from super rugby and keep them in the RC. Like you say in English: having your cake and eat it. But good luck with that, they may accept.
For the 6th nations staying as it's now, it's quite unlikely as CVC will enter in June in the board. I don't think they will give us money for nothing. And us the NH fans have no vote on this subject.

Ali's Choice wrote:

jos wrote:On this point we disagree. You seems to think you could ditch them from super rugby and keep them in the RC. Like you say in English: having your cake and eat it. But good luck with that, they may accept.
For the 6th nations staying as it's now, it's quite unlikely as CVC will enter in June in the board. I don't think they will give us money for nothing. And us the NH fans have no vote on this subject.

Strange post given those discussions have been happening off and on for twenty years. Since the late 1990's the South African Rugby Union has been threatening to leave Super Rugby. We are used to that. But they have always maintained that they did not want to leave the profitable Tri Nations/RC. You don't actually follow SH Rugby do you?