In news that’s unlikely to really surprise anyone, it’s been confirmed by SANZAR that the mysterious “18th team” set for inclusion in the 2016 Super Rugby extravaganza showcase will come from either Japan or Singapore.
With the addition of the Kings and a team of Argentine amateurs already sure to further increase the smorgasbord of mediocrity, one can only shudder at the prospect of seeing exactly what sort of player corps this “East African” team would comprise. Odds, I would think, would strongly favour a cohort of over-the-hill mercenaries from Super Rugby’s almost forgotten glory days finding their way into such an outfit.
SARU has been outmaneuvered again in these negotiations; in keeping their own conferences unchanged and ensuring that they will play against each other every year, the Australians and New Zealanders get the better deal by keeping a format that will ensure their rugby stays strong. South Africa, on the other hand, has been sold a glorified Currie Cup to be watered down further by the need to expand to developing nations. That in itself might have been easier to swallow if the 18th team had been from Kenya, Namibia or anywhere else actually in Africa, rather than some far-flung and god-forsaken corner of the Antipodean back yard that will negate virtually all the travel concessions that are supposed to be the benefit of this flawed system.
Singapore? You’ve got to be bloody joking!
Tweet
Whoever came up with THAT idea should be shot!
Why not rather add another Argentinean team.
Why the hell did we not move north, I am quite sure it would have been better playing English and French teams rather than an amateur club from Argentina and a Singaporian team. Do they even play rugby in Singapore? 😯
@Sharksmad – The Blog’s Dudette (Comment 3) : problem with moving North is the different seasons.
So will the Argentinean team be based in Argentina, and this other team in Singapore or Japan? If so the players are going to build up some serious frequent flyer miles.
Say thank you to the Kings for giving us this, you can add the Watson’s to the “To Blame List”
@Sharksmad – The Blog’s Dudette (Comment 3) : I agree North is the way forward for SA, including better cash for our teams surely.
@robdylan (Comment 4) : How long is their off season?
Our top franchises should withdraw from Super Rugby, in kind of the same way they did up north. Screw Saru and Sanzar.
Thank you Watson you destructive virus for setting this in motion
@JarsonX (Comment 8) : I totally agree. The franchises and the players actually need to stand up to this crap and withdraw.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 7) : kind of July-September-ish
North north north north north change our season if we have to
if you guys think Cheeky Watson was to blame for this mess you’re deluded.
Super Rugby would eventually have expanded without Watson and the Kings. So I dont think they should be blamed at all. Rather blame the money hungry a-holes who probably never even made the C-team in school.
Time to start a petition and give us back Super 12 rugby.
Let’s do 💡
@robdylan (Comment 11) : One way we could do this is buy playing the CC during that window period. In fact their “summer” is pretty much just as good as our winters. So I don’t see why they cant make their season fit ours.
@JarsonX (Comment 8) : AMEN to that! Screw SANZAR!!!!
@Uli Boelie (Comment 17) : We would be the ones arriving cap in hand asking to be accommodated – which means we would have to adapt to their season.
I don’t see the Northern hemisphere players (and neither ours) to keen to play rugby in SA in November to February.
@JarsonX (Comment 14) : Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole issue of not enough teams started with the Kings wanting to join back in the Super14 days.
They never managed to join after SANZAR gave the Rebels the Kings spot.
Its amazing how people can actually get away with making decisions like this. IN the end the consumer (us) is ultimately to be blamed as we support this system and make it possible, either through DStV supcriptions to Supersport, or season ticket sales to the Union. Only when there is a collective will to take a stand, will things change.
@stevovo (Comment 21) : I have always been saying this. We need to stand up to this crap
@stevovo (Comment 21) : @Uli Boelie (Comment 22) : Well I can tell you without a whisker of a doubt, that I am not going to buy season tickets in 2016, because there is no way in hell I am going to go to all the effort of forcing my husband (who hates rugby) to drive me all the way to Durban (I can’t drive at night) to watch the Sharks play Singapore!
Any format would have been better than this ❗
Bring back Super 12! Like a ‘Champions League’ for rugby, with top 4 teams from each country’s domestic league qualifying.
Or is this not complicated enough for the administrators?
Uli, the competition started as a Super 10 remember? It expanded without the help of Mr Watson. And it will keep on expanding after the Kings have been made a permanent fixture.
Pat is back!
@robdylan (Comment 13) : 100% agreed
They should have split it in two divisions (12 team premier and 9 team second division) and three conferences (SA, Aus and NZ) with promotion relegation on a per conference basis. Each division operates like the Super 12 did.
@JarsonX (Comment 26) : Actually started as a Super6 without SA teams, 1994 SA teams joined in on the Fun and was expanded to Super10.
1995 saw professionalism bring its part and the Super 12 was born and also provide a platform for all teams to play each other once, and no more group A and B.
2006 brought the Super 14 which added the Cheetahs and the Western Force.
2011 brought the Super15 after which the Kings were almost promised inclusion, just for SANZAR to award the spot to the Rebels.
Point is, it expanded without Watson.
@JarsonX (Comment 31) : Bud the kings pushed for inclusion in the super14 days. The super 14 was fine by everyone’s standards until the Kings wanted their spot.
Stop being naive.
Ok, continue with your line of thought if you please then 🙄
@JarsonX (Comment 33) : and you may continue being naïve good sir 😎
@Uli Boelie (Comment 32) : So did the Cheetahs, the Force, the Rebels etc. Thanks Watsons – didn’t realize you had a hand on all theses franchises.
@MysticShark (Comment 35) : You smoke much?
@Uli Boelie (Comment 34) : Pot / Kettle
😈
The Watsons. Evil personified. I believe Adolf’s mom’s maiden surname was Watson.
I also believe that Cobus Reinach likes the Sherlock Holmes movies, including a leading character whose surname is (drumroll please) Watson.
Coincidence? Don’t be naive.
Based on what silly?
@Big Fish (Comment 39) : LOVE it!!
@Big Fish (Comment 39) :
😆
Ok ok ok…
Ek wag nogsteeds vir die so genaamde feite waarvan julle so beweerings maak. Julle sê nee dit is nie so nie, maar op wat baser julle kamstig julle feite op? Terselfde tyd prober julle eeder ander mense verkleineer omdat julle self nie feite het nie? of het julle?
Kom maak skoon en debad eeder as om onder brûe te bly en kinderagtige te wees.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 44) :
He who prosecutes must prove – the burden of proof lies squarely on you.
Before you turn this website into a proxy for You magazine, why not share the “feite” that you have regarding Watson’s involvement in bringing this change about.
Just a note though – conjecture, speculation and creative causation are NOT facts.
Now, do proceed.
@Big Fish (Comment 45) : Bewys my verkeerd, dit is wat ek gevra het. Moenie nou weer jou storie verander nie en ‘n persoonlike aanval om my maak nie, ek het gevra dat jy my bewys dat hy of hulle GEEN hand in die werking gehand het wat gely het tot die problem waar mee ons vandag sit nie.
My punt op die ou einde is, hulle het by gedra dat die gebeur, hulle het dit nie laat gebeur nie, maar baie grootliks bygedra dat dit gebeur.
Om te gaan sê dat hulle glad nie ‘n hand in die hele episode gehad het van destyds tot nou toe nie, die gat waarin ons nou almal sit, is om regtig onder ‘n hoender uit gebrooi te wees.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 46) : What personal attacks? You’re the one who started calling JarsonX naive. BF is quite correct, burden of proof is on you as you’re the one making the allegation.
“Burden of proof is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it.”
@vanmartin (Comment 47) : Nee Jason het beweer dat die Super rugby in elk geval sou vergroot het met of sonder die watsons/kings se hulp.
So daarmee vra ek dat dit bewys sou word. Dankie.
Soos ek gesê het, hulle het ‘n hand in die saak gehad van dag een af.
My bewyse is dat hulle aanhoudende gestoot het om in die kompetisie te wees. In kort, het dit terug gekom op die hele Suid-Afrika. Wat jy saai sal jy maai. Is dit genoeg bewys Milady?
😆 🙄
I believe the Singapore angle is 100% there because of SARU and has nothing to do with Australia or New Zealand. If thats the case then SARU carry the baton for not pushing for Kenya / Zim / Nam being punted as a franchise.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 46) :
You are alleging that they brought this about – therefore you need to prove it. Once you have provided at least prima facie proof, then you can certainly expect that the burden lies on me to disprove your evidence. Your opinion is not fact.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 48) :
“conjecture, speculation and creative causation are NOT facts”
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 50) : Its sad though as the competition gets so watered down each time they introduce more teams. No one is interested in it anymore. they are loosing more and more viewers by watering it down, yet they include more and more teams to try and gain more viewers.
I for one have probably only watched about 6 games max, and two of those where on Saturday. 5 Sharks games and Saturdays Saders game. There is no more excitement to the competition at all except when your team gets to the final 6.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 52) : Don’t change the subject boet. Still waiting for your proof.
@Big Fish (Comment 51) : Ag luister man, ek is nie lus vir ‘n stukkende grammofoon plaat nie.
@MysticShark (Comment 53) : Ek gee vir jou, en net vir jou, sommer ‘n leker verlepte angelier. Hoe klink dit?
Guys what I think Uli is trying to say, is that SA should have left sleeping dogs to sleep (or is it lying dogs to ly?) any way, if SA had not insisted on a 6th team then this new conference system would not have been necessary, however Watson’s pressure on SARU etc made us pull the dog’s tail and so we sit with this new monster.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 50) : Why do you believe its SARU that came up with Singapore of all places? surely it does nothing for our Rugby?
@Sharksmad – The Blog’s Dudette (Comment 56) : Baie waar.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 54) :
The Constitution confers many rights, including your right to remain ignorant. Thats one thing you have clearly proved at least.
So hold on Uli… are you seriously proclaiming that Super Rugby expanded as a result of the Watsons and EC Rugby?
Are you serias? I reckon you’re being asked for proof, because there is none.
Super Rugby started expanding when rugby went professional. To somehow confer the expansion on the abilities of the Watsons or Tony McKeever is almost beyond belief.
Super Rugby is expanding because thats what commercial ventures do when they make money. They try to make more money.
This must be a wind-up. Nobody can possibly have such a blinkered view in life.
@Big Fish (Comment 58) : Jammerte daar is nie so iets vir mense met alzheimer nie. Temunste is en kan ek arrogant wees. Dankie tog vir die grondwet.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 48) : I see you dropped the personal attack angle at least.
Your second point is not proof, it’s your opinion.
@Sharksmad – The Blog’s Dudette (Comment 56) : I read it somewhere, the New Zealanders were going off about the madness of it.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 62) : The NZealanders are probably right. 🙄
@Sharksmad – The Blog’s Dudette (Comment 56) : @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 62) :
Here is a link to the article.
http://www.supersport.com/rugby/super-rugby/news/140707/Singapore_the_favourite_for_Super_Rugby
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 64) : Eish, seems I took Eddie Jones as the sole representative of the New Zealand nation – sorry all you good Kiwis
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 64) : Good golly. I agree with Eddie Jones, play the games in Dubai but surely Japan is the better option.
But then again, takling midgets from Japan will hardly prepare us takling the NZ behomoths. None of our players came back better from Japan than when they went there 🙁
@Sharksmad – The Blog’s Dudette (Comment 66) : That team will probably be loaded with Saffer, Aussie and Kiwi players earning some Yen.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 65) : Oh my hat. “Consider this. Japan recently beat Sri Lanka 132-10 and Singapore are ranked 10 spots lower than them at No 58 in the world,”
Hope there is a rule that allows us to send our u19 sides over to Singapore to collect the 5 points while our main sides enjoy a bit of a rest.
@gregkaos (Comment 68) : This is what you get when broadcasting deals drive decision making.
@gregkaos (Comment 68) : These teams will do wonders for our rotation policy
@vanmartin (Comment 69) : Indeed. I wonder if anyone has actually asked the Singaporean team if they even want to play against SR teams.
Would Singapore be able to prevent anything other than a 3 digit score to nil vs any SR team?
@FireTheLooser (Comment 70) :
Yeah that is an upside!
@gregkaos (Comment 68) :
Greg,
You’ve never been to Singapore, have you? The whole city state is made up of expats.
A Singaporean team will become a Toulon sort of side. It’ll suck up players if there’s a financial backer. And in Singapore there sure as hell will be.
This has zero to do with the Singaporean national side.
@VinChainSaw (Comment 73) : I hope so. They will need to relax the laws about how many mercs can be in that side to avoid getting utterly humiliated every week.
@VinChainSaw (Comment 73) : So this team based in Singapore will be much stronger than the national team.
Sounds like the Sharks and the Boks. 😈
Imagine how strong the team based in Japan could then be with their business backing, or a South Korean team backed by Samsung or Hyundai.
@VinChainSaw (Comment 73) : If its just about a wealthy country then why Singapore, why not the Middle East, or South Korea or Japan or many other countries.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 76) :
Time zones. The is the quid pro quo for another saffa side.
And if it goes to Singapore the kiwis will supply the coaches and half the players.
If it goes to Japan there’ll be honour involved and quota for Japanese players etc.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 75) : somehow I do not se one of Japans current teams play in the Super shit, so a new team will be formed for this.
Between Japan and Singapore, the latter wins hands down. — Better time zone and less travel.
If the Kiwis and Aussies want a Japan team, they can always add it in their conference.
I agree with Uli in that SARUs push for expansion has all along been about finding a way to accommodate the EC……..I disagree about it being a bad thing though.
The crowds at Mandela Bay Stadium convinced me that the EC deserves a Super team much more than Bloemfontein, or Dunedin, or Melbourne or Hamilton.
You want to go back to S12 or S14? Dump the teams in the smallest markets first. The original mistake of S12 was placing 5 teams in New Zeeland.
@gregkaos (Comment 74) : this is an absolute joke ,except the joke is on us,what you and I were argueing is now moot,in fact the Sharks will now have to find a vastly smaller stadium perhaps a school field cause by 2018 the Tank will be way to big for the miniscule crowd attendance,and those memories of 2007 are fast becoming priceless!hold on to them
@fyndraai (Comment 79) : this year showed that SA can’t even enter 5 competitive teams now they will have 6. I think that with the player drain to Europe and Japan SA can only field 4 competitive teams in Super rugby.
@benji (Comment 80) : ja think even the Currie cup could be harder than this idiotic new system.
@fyndraai (Comment 79) : I suppose you can say the say about the Sharks crowds then…. We haven’t been able to fill the stadium on the last 3 times that we played finals rugby at KP.
I agree that NZ got the better by having 5 teams in the Super12, we only need 4 teams from each country.
The only way it will work is if we use the same system we used for Super10 by having the top 4 CC teams from each year go through to the Super12 the following year. Ditto to the other countries that are involved, this would give lower teams something to play for each year and also give everyone a refreshed competition each year by having a few new teams involved.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 83) : The Aussies don’t have a domestic competition, that’s why they pushed for an expansion to the S15 conference system and Super Rugby turned into a local derby fest. SANZAR smiled all the way to the bank though as local derbies bring in more money.
@vanmartin (Comment 84) : So much more reason to make them have a local comp or rather force them to have one.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 85) : Absolutely agreed but it seems the ARU are still at a loss about how to compete with Aussie Rules and Rugby League.
@fyndraai (Comment 79) : But if rugby culture / history is of no concern in determining where this franchise will be then why not Dubai, 2 hours time difference (Singapore is 6) and 2 hour shorter flight time.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 87) :
Is there a credible interest from Dubai? Will they be able to attract local fans?
If yes. Then Dubai would be good.
It’s not that SARU has been out negotiated, it is what I refer to as SARU own stupidity in demanding a 6th South African team in the competition, where time has already proven that we don’t even have the capacity to have 5 teams in the competition.
We had since the introduction of the competition had a team at the bottom of the log. This year, we have 4 of our 5 teams at the bottom half of the log, which emphasize that we don’t have the capacity to compete at this level with so many teams. We are losing players overseas and with our politics will have even less to choose from. And now the limited remaining capacity has to be even further distributed over 6 teams.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 83) :
This idea among fans that a P/R system will influence player motivation in any way is deeply flawed.
Player “promotion” is independent of team promotion. A player may gain “promotion” by simply signing with a team that’s already promoted. Likewise a player in a promoted team may easily find himself “demoted” for another whom management deems better.
Furthermore it creates a disincentive for longer term commitments by players coaches, fans and sponsors, and as such, a negative impact on quality.
@MRS ROSE (Comment 91) : I don’t think you belong on here…unless you can help the Sharks win Super Rugby…then its ok!!
@Uli Boelie (Comment 6) : no don’t blame them blame SARU who is to pathetic to make a decision! !!!! Rather than worrying about the quality just wanted to keep everyone happy by adding another team! !!!. Everyone who complained about crowd attendance at game watch the totals drop when the new format begins next year!!!!!!
comment #91 and #93 are hilarious!
@Kiss_the_Gold (Comment 95) : wtf is going on with those comments?!?!?!