Australia backs Super Rugby format

Australia backs Super Rugby format

By James Heffield, Betfair rugby bet journalist

Australian Super 14 franchises and the ARU have spoken out in support of the current Super Rugby format following a proposal from nine New Zealand provinces to introduce a new Trans-Tasman competition.

If accepted, the proposed new competition, which would involve five Australian teams and nine New Zealand teams, would replace the current Super 14 and exclude South Africa. The proposed competition would run in conjunction with a European-cup style competition and for New Zealand players it would mean playing for their home province (eg. Southland) all season long as opposed to the current format of switching teams for the Super 14.

The New Zealand Rugby Union has not endorsed the proposal, but media reports have suggested it has support from North Harbour, Wellington, Canterbury, Auckland, Waikato, Otago, Hawke's Bay, Taranaki, and Southland.

But ARU chief executive John O’Neill does not back the competition and has instead been calling for an expanded Super 14. Super Rugby is the only top quality rugby union competition in Australia following the demise of the Australian Rugby Championship and for those at the top expansion is seen as the only way forward.

O’Neill was right behind a proposal to expand the Super 14 finals competition to incorporate six teams rather than four and was involved in talk of expanding the current competition into the Pacific Islands, Japan and the United States. Both Rugby Western Australia CEO Greg Harris and New South Wales Rugby counterpart Jim L’Estrange echoed O’Neill’s sentiments, which they believe are the best option for Australian rugby as it builds on a stable, already successful format.

Both possible competitions would create more rugby, reducing the temptation for fringe national team players to head to Europe. Both would also expand into areas like Melbourne and compete against other football codes. However, only the Super 14 has a proven track record and now, at a time when even O’Neill has suggested union and league will eventually merge, the safe option has to be the best option for Australian rugby.

i hope they do there best to make the expanded season run in conjunction witht the european one, would love a world rugby season so we can get some real test tours!

Agreed WJ, I reckon we should can the June window and use that time to expand the S14..... I'd rather watch the :force: in a tight game than watching the :wallabies: smashing England U20'sB

we already start playing in late feb early march, we may as well just lay through summer and create a global season!

surely they could play late night games or something to accomadate for temperatures!

Jeez mate the pre-season games were killers over here, don't forget it gets sunny in summer, well it does on this side of the country that all the good rugby players want to live!

hey, i would want to play in perth if they offered me 300 grand more than anyone else!

i know its hot, bt we start so early in the year now, we may as well at least start a couple of weeks early and at least finish at the same time, if anyone has the time actually, can someone go to the effort of getting the dates of the european premiership so we can compare the season? (i would but im lazy!)

Rugby WA can only offer them $110,000 a year. Same as the other franchises.

hahahaha, we gotta stop this, were discussing third party payments in three different threads!

perth knew what third party sponsors were on the table, the third party sponsor was a force sponsor, its not like a completely independent issue!

its dodgy in every club, and each state cheats there was around the rules!

OK then stop!

Seriously I know as well as anybody that the Force knew there were third party payments on the table. What I'm saying is they didn't have any CONTROL over them, neither did they have any RESPONSIBILITY other than the moral responsibility you have to not knowingly putting anybody through the shit. The real issue is that even if they knew for certain that Firpower was dodgy, what could they do? even if they talk to the manager about the third party stuff there's a legal argument which could get them in the shit. Nope if you want to blame anybody for using the funds to lure precious rugby talent away from the East Coast, blame the managers.....it shouldn't be too hard, most of them live in Sydney don't they?

nah most of them are on boats in international waters waiting for the firepower thing to blow over!

bck to the comp, what if you play the first month away, do your tour of new zealand while its hot, then come back and start the same time you do now at home?

That'll mean we get the easy games out of the way too early, everybody knows we rule away from home!

later games wouldnt work in the ealier season. not with daylight savings. it would still be bloody hot here

could this competition make enough money?

I think the other idea for super rugby (expanding into USA and Asia) would make twice as much money and would make it more possible to compete with Europe.

the comp in the article would be crap!

its ew zealand clubs trying to profit, super rugby is a much higher level and interesting beast, although south africa might maek future plans easy on ev eryone, are they still threatening to play in europe?

I agree just expand the Super 14, although an earlier start in the year may not be on the cards due to summer being bloody hot, maybe start at the same time and run through the July-ish? Start the 3N later and possibly have some tests against the Northern Nations later in the year?