To chop or not to chop?

Written by Jan Dyman (JD)

Posted in :Original Content, Super Rugby on 20 Apr 2017 at 11:48
Tagged with : , , , ,

Well actually that is not the question anymore since SANZAAR already decided three teams should be chopped. The question now is, who must be chopped?

Ok just for interest’s sake let’s start by looking at how the Ozzie sides performance in Super rugby, going way back to the start of the Super 14 in 2006:

Just a quick explanation of the columns:  “Average Position” are the average log position achieved by the team for the period, “Average Log Points” are the average log points scored per season for the period, “% Log Points” are the total log points scored as a percentage of total possible log points for the period and well “Team” is the…… do I really need to explain it?

So here goes:

Super 14: played from 2006 to 2010 and here’s how the Ozzie teams performed:

Team Average Position Average Log Points % Log Points
Waratahs 5.2 38.6 59.38
Brumbies 6.6 36.6 56.31
Force 10 26.2 40.31
Reds 11.2 21.8 33.54

During this time the Waratahs were the only Ozzie team to reach the play-offs, playing in three semi-finals (winning only one) and one (losing) final.

In Super 14 no Ozzie team could finish on top of the overall Super rugby log. The Waratahs did finish second (once) and third (twice) so was by far the best (or rather least worst) Ozzie side in Super 14.

Super 15: played from 2011 to 2015 and here’s how the Ozzie teams performed:

Team Average Position Average Log Points % Log Points
Waratahs 5.6 43.4 54.25
Brumbies 6.6 48.6 60.75
Reds 7 46.4 58
Force 12.4 30.8 38.5
Rebels 13 30 37.5

Somehow the increase from four to five Ozzie sides really worked for them as during this time they stepped up and even had two champion sides.

The Waratahs played in one quarter final (losing), two semi-final (win one and loss one) and one final winning the Super 15 title.

The Reds played in two quarter finals (losing both), one semi-final (winning it) and one final winning the Super 15 title.

The Brumbies played in three quarter finals (winning all three), in three semi-finals (winning one and losing two) and one (losing) final.

As for finishing on top of the overall log the Ozzie teams also did better with both the Waratahs and Reds able to end a season in the overall top spot. The Waratahs was also able to finish second once and the Reds and Brumbies rounded it off by finishing third on one occasion each.

What’s really interesting is that although the Waratahs were able to have a better average log position than both the Brumbies and Reds overall, the last mentioned teams were able to score more overall log points during this five year period than the Waratahs.

Super 18: played from 2016 to date and here’s how the Ozzie teams performed:

Team Average Position Average Log Points % Log Points
Brumbies 4 43 57.33
Waratahs 10 40 53.33
Rebels 12 31 41.33
Reds 15 17 22.67
Force 16 13 17.33

With only the Brumbies able to reach the play-offs last year (losing in the quarter finals) and the Brumbies again leading the Ozzie conference this year but way behind the other conference leaders (and only able to score the ninth most log points to date), it seems as if the honeymoon is over for the Ozzie sides.

So taking a holistic look at the period from 2010 – 2016 when all five Ozzie teams played, this is how their average points percentages look:

Brumbies – 60.21% of possible log points scored

Waratahs – 54.11% of possible log points scored

Reds – 52.42% of possible log points scored

Rebels – 38.11% of possible log points scored

Force – 35.16% of possible log points scored

Personally I think the Ozzies are spot on when they say it will be either the Rebels or Force who will be cut, as clearly all three the other sides are way better than them. Which one to cut who knows and to be 100% honest, who cares!?

Way more important is the future of the South African sides, so let’s see how they did using the same formulas as I did for the Ozzie sides:

Super 14 were played from 2006 to 2010 and here’s how the SA teams performed:

Team Average Position Average Log Points % Log Points
Bulls 3.8 40.2 61.85
Sharks 4.8 39.2 60.31
Stormers 7.6 32.4 49.85
Cheetahs 11.8 19.8 30.46
Lions (Cats for 2006) 13 15.8 24.31

During this time Bulls played in three finals, winning all three and to date they’re still the only SA side to win a Super Rugby title.

Sharks made the playoffs twice and played in one final and that’s all I’m willing to say about that!

Stormers also made the playoffs once, reaching the final but losing.

This then was clearly the best period for SA in Super rugby as can be seen in the fact that two of the five finals were all SA affairs. During this time SA sides topped the overall log on three occasions (Bulls twice and Sharks once) with two years resulting in a SA first and second place (Sharks/Bulls and then Bulls/Stormers) on the overall log. Unfortunately, between the Lions and the Cheetahs they finished on the opposite side of the log on three of the five years but hey, someone needs to finish last.

Then the powers that be decided it was not enough so an upgraded Super 15 was played from 2011 to 2015. Here’s how the SA teams performed:

Team Average Position Average Log Points % Log Points
Stormers 4.8 51.2 64
Bulls 6.4 50.4 63
Sharks 6.8 49.6 62
Cheetahs 10.6 36.4 36.4
Lions (excl 2013) 12.25 31.75 39.69
Kings (only 2013) 15 24 30

Stormers played in two Semi-finals and one quarter final. Unfortunately for them they lost in all three play-off games.

Bulls played in one quarter final and one semi-final but, like the Stormers, they could not win a play-off game losing both matches.

Cheetahs played in one quarter final and lost.

Sharks played in three quarter final games winning two. They also played in two semi-finals winning one but losing in the only final that a SA side played. So during this time, the Sharks were the only SA team that could win play-off games and reach a final.

The Stormers was the only SA team to finish in the top three more than once with a first, second and third place on the overall log. The only other teams to finish in the top three log position was once again the Bulls (finished second once) and Sharks (finishing in third).

But then the powers that be once again decided it was not enough so an upgrade to Super 18 was played from 2016 and here’s how the SA teams performed:

Team Average Position Average Log Points % Log Points
Lions 2 52 69.33
Stormers 3 51 68
Sharks 8 43 57.33
Bulls 9 42 56
Cheetahs 14 21 28
Kings 17 9 12

Lions, Stormers and Sharks reached the quarter finals with only Lions able to win. Lions also won their semi-final but lost in the final.

So taking a holistic look at the period from 2010 – 2016 this is how their average points percentages looks:

Stormers – 64.63% of possible log points scored

Bulls – 61.89% of possible log points scored

Sharks – 61.26% of possible log points scored

Lions – 45.32% of possible log points scored

Cheetahs – 42.74% of possible log points scored

Kings – 21.29% of possible log points scored

Ok so on performance the Stormers, Bulls and Sharks must surely be safe?!

Now, let’s have a quick look at some average crowd attendances for home matches. These attendance figures were for the duration of the Super 15 (2011-2015) and please note attendance figures differ from site to site, so it’s impossible to state these figures as a fact and should only be seen as a guideline:

Stormers – 35 000

Bulls – 30 800

Kings – 30 000

Lions – 25 750

Sharks – 24 600

Cheetahs – 18 800

Seems then as if the people in and around Cape Town either have less to do than the other centres or they just like rugby more, as they’re way ahead of all the other teams! Bulls and Kings were in close proximity but then again Kings only had one season, so their figures might have changed a bit since then. Personally I think Lions and Sharks attendance was a bit disappointing as both are big unions so they should have at least matched the Bulls and Stormers.  As expected, the Cheetahs were way down with regards to crowds. This could be a problem for the Cheetahs fight to stay in Super rugby.

As I’m sure everyone is aware SARU is not happy with the stadiums/facilities of the Sharks and the Stormers and seemingly the best thing for both unions would be to start thinking seriously about moving to the 2010 Soccer World Cup stadiums. However this will unlikely be enough motivation to exclude either of the teams from Super rugby but then again, stranger things has happened!

So where does this leave the teams? What will be deemed to be more important, current performance, historical performance, crowd attendance/support, possibility for growth, player base, development, facilities, etc who knows? Let’s hope SARU knows and that when they make the decision, it will be in the best interest of South African rugby!

What would I do if the decision were up to me?

I believe rugby should be as wide spread as possible, so personally it would be hard for me to see any good coming from cutting Super Rugby from the Free State. Also due to their locations and reasonable performances, the Stormers and Sharks should stay in Super Rugby. Cutting the only SA team to win Super Rugby or the team that reached the final last year and that’s currently the leading SA team would also be hard to justify! So that only leaves the Kings as a clear cut option! Problem is, how do you fit five teams into four spots?!?!?!

What I’d suggest might be a dream or impossible to implement but hey that’s what’s nice about writing the article I can give my opinion, so here goes:

As you can predict, (and showing no favouritism) the Sharks will be there. The Stormers will also make it. I just can’t leave the Cheetahs out so they will also be there. Now this is where things get tricky, who gets cut Lions or Bulls…….. well neither or both, depending on how you look at it! I personally believe Lions and Bulls should be one Super Rugby franchise, and before you laugh or stone me, I do have a couple of reasons for my opinion.

Lions really only had two good seasons and that coincidentally are also the season(s) when the Bulls struggled!?

Lions only started to perform under the guidance of Johan Ackermann and as we all know he is leaving at the end of the season. Will his replacement(s) be able to produce the same results or will they go back to where they were before he started?

But the most important factor is actually a decision that SARU made. The decision to change their constitution and to align with SA’s geopolitical boundaries and move to nine members of SA Rugby as appose to 14 in the past. As I understand it this means that, as both the Bulls and Lions are based in Gauteng, they are counted as one member and thus will share representation in SA Rugby. To have one member with two Super Rugby teams whilst removing the Super Rugby teams from two other members does not make sense to me.

So there – this is my honest opinion and I believe it could be the best possible solution.

I would just like to give credit to the following websites/people for information that I used to compile the article:

*Wikipedia for all the log position and log points.

**Statbunker for the average attendance figures of Super 15.

***My beautiful wife for proof reading and stopping me from totally murdering the English language. Also for correcting those pesky spelling mistakes that Spellcheck could not find any spelling suggestions for!


  • Very interesting stuff JD. Congrats on a very thoughtful article.

    Some contributions:
    – Union finances and sponsorships will be another factor that may be considered when deciding who to cut.
    – TV audiences will probably also come into play. I’d imagine stadium attendance is likely inconsequential compared to TV viewership?

  • Comment 1, posted at 20.04.17 12:11:46 by vanmartin Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • Great article. We may yet see the Bull Lions in action in 2018, along with the King Cheetahs.

  • Comment 2, posted at 20.04.17 12:17:12 by StevieS Reply
  • @StevieS (Comment 2) : So do we call them the Bullions? Points to a fact that much about rugby nowadays is about money…

    Very good article which makes a lot of sense. Sharks may loose out in the end when the other teams combine. Hope Teich and team are looking ahead to build a proper competitive team…

  • Comment 3, posted at 20.04.17 12:31:10 by T-Shark Reply

  • @T-Shark (Comment 3) : The Bullion Rangers. Referencing Bulls and Lions as well as Bullion, as in gold. And Rangers because the Bullions as a team name doesn’t do it for me but the Bullion Rangers can be like a Game Ranger (again referencing animals) or someone who looks after the gold (think private security). I like this idea, lets run with it.

  • Comment 4, posted at 20.04.17 12:43:37 by Hulk Reply

  • So it’s confirmed then – Stormers are the best team with the best supporters. :mrgreen:

  • Comment 5, posted at 20.04.17 12:57:49 by McLovin Reply

  • Cannot believe the Kings attendance figures. Don’t believe anything that comes from them.

  • Comment 6, posted at 20.04.17 12:59:25 by McLovin Reply

  • Great piece though. Very thorough. Thanks

  • Comment 7, posted at 20.04.17 13:00:46 by McLovin Reply

  • @Hulk (Comment 4) : The logo should be interesting… a Lion wearing a Daisy?

  • Comment 8, posted at 20.04.17 13:09:03 by T-Shark Reply

  • Just watched the Sharks presser. Injured players still recovering: Pat, Keegan, Inny, Clement, JLdP. Keegan may get time next week. Pat about 3 weeks.

  • Comment 9, posted at 20.04.17 13:10:38 by T-Shark Reply

  • Nice one, JD. Thanks…

  • Comment 10, posted at 20.04.17 13:12:49 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @StevieS (Comment 2) : Bulls and tsietas should be lumped together ( both believe VC coaches are up to the task in SR, neither are able to properly manage their finances), Kings can continue to be the poaching grounds for the Sharks.

  • Comment 11, posted at 20.04.17 13:13:37 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @vanmartin (Comment 1) : It would also be interesting to compare our attendance and viewership figures to those of Aus and NZ…

  • Comment 12, posted at 20.04.17 13:15:37 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @pastorshark (Comment 12) : I think we comfortably beat them in both regards if memory serves. Attendance is however not an apples to apples comparison as some of their stadiums are smaller I think.

  • Comment 13, posted at 20.04.17 13:36:47 by vanmartin Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • Watching the Cheetahs and the Bulls games last weekend I got the feeling that they probably both deserve to be chopped…and this had nothing to do with the results of those games but with the handfull of supporters that bothered to pitch up to watch their games. Both crowds were pathetic and lets not forget the Cheetahs were playing the Chiefs who should already be a major draw card . After JD posted what the Cheetahs admin has done to get bums on seats I feel it is not their fault but the apathy of their supporters that are letting this team down.

  • Comment 14, posted at 20.04.17 14:07:59 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 11) : As usual your comments are illogical and not very well thought through. Firstly, nothing wrong with the Cheetahs finances, seeing as they showed a healthy profit. Secondly, just because the Cheetahs are battling in Super Rugby doesn’t make Franco a VC coach. He has a better track record than Robert du Preez, Nollis and Fleck put together. Has coached overseas with great success too. So who can take your ramblings seriously? :mrgreen:

  • Comment 15, posted at 20.04.17 14:34:04 by KingCheetah Reply

  • Nice article JD

  • Comment 16, posted at 20.04.17 14:34:42 by KingCheetah Reply

  • Nice one JD

  • Comment 17, posted at 20.04.17 15:41:54 by Big Fish Reply
    Big Fish
  • @KingCheetah (Comment 15) : Has Franco had any SR experience before being given the head coach gig?
    Glad to hear the tsietas are making a profit, which excuse should their fans now use as reason for them not being competitive – always used to be because they are too “armgat” to afford to keep their players…They can either afford to be in this competition (ie buy proper players, or hold onto the players on their books), or they can’t, in which case they should bow-out.

  • Comment 18, posted at 20.04.17 15:49:14 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 18) : Pffffftttt! Pointless reasoning with you. Doesn’t mean that if they showed a profit, they have the kind of budget, that the bigger unions have to spend on players. It simply means, that they operate within the parameters of their budgets.
    Did Ackers, Nollis, Gold, du Preez, or Fleck have Super Rugby experience prior to being appointed?
    Franco has a good coaching pedigree, wether you, with your blinkers on want to acknowledge it or not.

  • Comment 19, posted at 20.04.17 16:17:04 by KingCheetah Reply

  • @KingCheetah (Comment 19) : Tell me more about me and my blinkers. 😉

  • Comment 20, posted at 20.04.17 16:22:12 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 18) : What excuse are the Sharks going to use for sucking at CC, Varsity Cup, and all levels of junior rugby? Surely a rich and prosperous union shouldn’t get derailed by the loss of three Boks?

  • Comment 21, posted at 20.04.17 16:38:18 by KingCheetah Reply

  • @KingCheetah (Comment 21) : Not my argument, but Ive come to realise that everything but SupeRugby (and to a much smaller extent, Currie Cup these days), success counts for squat. Age group, varsity cup, Vodacom Cup et al are nice to haves but having them means little to nothing if your SupeRugby team barely competes, They are not going to bring the sponsors running, the fans filling the stadium and the players queing to sign. Sad reality.

  • Comment 22, posted at 20.04.17 17:05:22 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 22) : Exactly,I only watch that stuff if there is nothing else to watch, much rather watch a series on Netflicks.

  • Comment 23, posted at 20.04.17 17:40:46 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The hound
  • @KingCheetah (Comment 21) : Your empoverished team can keep their semi-pro rugby, and then bow out of SR – they’re competitive at lower level rugby, let them focus on that….Leave the big leagues to the big boys.

  • Comment 24, posted at 20.04.17 18:05:07 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • From e person who has personal experience with both team merger and religation . merger kills both unions . you have half the home games . have to split sponsor money . half the players get exposure . i would rather get relugated than merge . merger will do more damage dan good . gou back and work hard for a year and get back

  • Comment 25, posted at 20.04.17 18:18:25 by Zibbie Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner
  • @vanmartin (Comment 1) : @StevieS (Comment 2) : @T-Shark (Comment 3) : @McLovin (Comment 7) : @pastorshark (Comment 10) : @KingCheetah (Comment 16) : @Big Fish (Comment 17) : thanx guys it’s always a pleasure writing for Sharksworld!

  • Comment 26, posted at 20.04.17 21:36:29 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Zibbie (Comment 25) : firstly I don’t think there’s coming back from this cut as I get the feeling it’s a permanent cut. Don’t think SARU will go for promotion/relegation again.
    Secondly you say merger will kill the team as they only get half the sponsorship money. Think if promotion/relegation is implemented teams will struggle to get “big” sponsors as I can’t see them willing to pay a lot of money to sponsor a team if they do not know if that team will play in the tournament next year?!
    Nothing about this is ideal and teams are going to get hurt no matter what SARU decides to do. Best think to do is to try and limit the damage as best they can.

  • Comment 27, posted at 20.04.17 21:57:11 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • JD.

    What’s the point of listing all those numbers if you’re going to include the Cheetahs based on how you feel?

  • Comment 28, posted at 21.04.17 05:52:39 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @vanmartin (Comment 1) :

    It’s not. TV revenues are pre-set at fixed amounts and is thus absorbed into base costs, whereas stadium attendance is variable and dependent on market size and therefore more likely to transfer to the bottom line.

    Larger, wealthier market teams are also much more desirable for broadcasters, because they translate into larger advertising revenues.

  • Comment 29, posted at 21.04.17 06:00:03 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @vanmartin (Comment 13) :

    As long as stadiums are not sold out, which they rarely are, attendance figures are apples to apples comparisons. In terms of revenue though, one has to make adjustments for differing ticket prices. I imagine that 1 full stadium seat in Sydney sell for a bit more than a similar seat in Durban.

  • Comment 30, posted at 21.04.17 06:07:20 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @KingCheetah (Comment 15) :

    Profit, for pro-sports teams, is a sign of bad management. They should have plowed that money into a better team.

  • Comment 31, posted at 21.04.17 06:12:23 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @McLovin (Comment 6) : Those King attendance figures are for the 2011 – 2015 period, which means only reflects the 2013 year the Kings were in SR. If you recall that year they had almost unrivaled support because they were so starved of rugby down there. If you watch their games this season you’ll see those numbers have dwindled dramatically and they probably haul in all of 5000 people.

  • Comment 32, posted at 21.04.17 07:39:14 by Hulk Reply

  • @fyndraai (Comment 28) : Did you read the whole article? He did say at the end it is his opinion and asked us for our input.

  • Comment 33, posted at 21.04.17 08:27:10 by Quintin Reply

  • Thanks for the article JD, was a great read!

  • Comment 34, posted at 21.04.17 08:27:37 by Quintin Reply

  • Thanks JD, very cool article!

  • Comment 35, posted at 21.04.17 08:42:52 by Culling Song Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Culling Song
  • The prime source of income to any PROFESSIONAL team is sponsorship.
    That is the main reason why the sport is professional,as opposed to amateur which is largely unfunded.
    Sponsorship is an exact science, while it is afforded most of the time in accordance with success this is not always the case.
    In the late 70’s and early 80’s the rise of Nike as a brand was associated with one John McEnroe.
    Nike decided to throw their whole fledgling budget behind him, not because he was the most successful tennis player that was the squeaky clean Swede Bjorn Borg
    .Borg was the epitome of a sponsorship dream, successful and conventional.
    McEnroe was the complete opposite,but Phil Knight made one of the most brilliant marketing decisions of all time to back the guy that might not win the tournament but who would be constantly winning the media awareness war, for whatever reason.
    McEnroe was never out of the news and nor was Nike,the rest is history.
    Moral of the story, sponsors look for the teams that give them the mileage.
    Here in South Africa years ago a small clothing retailer in the 80’s couldn’t afford to go on T.V but they found an opening on the Bulls jerseys’ place you’d expect to see Vleis Sentraal or A.V.B.O.B ,It worked so well that Mr.Price is a household name and spent many weekends on T.V on numerous teams jerseys including the Sharks.
    But it all started with the Sharks.

  • Comment 36, posted at 21.04.17 09:39:53 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The hound
  • This an extremely simplistic version of marketing 101 and I apologize to the marketers on the blog.

  • Comment 37, posted at 21.04.17 09:41:41 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The hound
  • @Hulk (Comment 32) : I see…. 🙂

  • Comment 38, posted at 21.04.17 10:03:30 by McLovin Reply

  • @The hound (Comment 36) : Vleis Sentraal 😆

  • Comment 39, posted at 21.04.17 10:05:38 by McLovin Reply

  • I agree with Zibbie, mergers kills unions. Back when the Lions and Cheetahs merged in the 90’s for the Super Rugby it severely weakened both unions in terms of finances and player resources. While unions like the Sharks, Stormers and Bulls only benefited from the merger. Logistically the teams were 600km apart and getting players around cost money, travelling between your 2 home grounds cost money. Furthermore the Lions and Cheetahs each got a much smaller cut of the advertising money compared to the other teams. Then there is the player resources. The Lions and Cheetahs squads now suddenly had 30 players competing for 15 places, so what happens, the reserve players leave for other teams like the Sharks, Stormers and Bulls. This over time weakened the Lions and Cheetahs in the Currie Cup and eventually in Super Rugby. Both teams are still recovering from the merger that nearly destroyed the two unions.

  • Comment 40, posted at 21.04.17 10:21:51 by Mutley Reply
  • I’ve got to admit after reading the comments. I agree with the article to keep everyone a merger must be made and the only viable option is the Bulls and Lions. However on saying that the money requirements and player drain that will ensue will probably cripple both franchises in all other competitions. It’s a difficult one and I’m sure we are going to be struggling with this for some time.

    Now if anyone can clear this up, please do, but don’t the NZ teams play under totally different brands for SR opposed to their ITM (local) cup. So for example the Blues in SR are from Auckland and surrounds but in ITM they split and play as Auckland, some other team and so on? I know I caught a Canterbury ITM match and I only recognized a few of the players, I assumed because they all went back to their respective “clubs”. So if my thinking above is correct perhaps SA needs to have a complete overhaul and the Sharks don’t play as The Natal Sharks but rather an amalgamation of unions (remember the Coastal Sharks, Northern Bulls etc) from the best supported geographic location ie Durban. Just a thought on a slow Friday.

  • Comment 41, posted at 21.04.17 11:40:11 by Hulk Reply

  • Nice article JD, thanks for taking the time to research and write it.

  • Comment 42, posted at 21.04.17 12:34:02 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
  • @JD (Comment 27) : The Lions played a whole season without a sponsor . I know and understand the implications of this . But relegation gives the team a chance to go back and get their house in order .

    I believe the Lions and cheetahs struggled so long is a after effect of having the Cats . The only way a merger would work is if the SR teams are separated from the provincial teams . and that wont happen .

    Let SARU give the teams promotion relegation . It will keep the teams in SR on their toes .

  • Comment 43, posted at 21.04.17 12:34:47 by Zibbie Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 42) :

    should ask me for help with research on why a merger is a [email protected] idea ….

  • Comment 44, posted at 21.04.17 12:37:41 by Zibbie Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner
  • @Hulk (Comment 41) : The latter part is a good idea . but SARU wont be able to run it . so it wont work

  • Comment 45, posted at 21.04.17 12:41:10 by Zibbie Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner
  • @Zibbie (Comment 44) : Im sure Rob will welcome your article. I too am looking forward to it.

  • Comment 46, posted at 21.04.17 13:16:01 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
  • @Zibbie (Comment 43) : ” The only way a merger would work is if the SR teams are separated from the provincial teams” I thought that would be a given. The Lions and Cheetahs were never lumped together for Currie Cup or Vodacom Cup rugby…..or were they and my memory is dropping me, again.

  • Comment 47, posted at 21.04.17 13:18:44 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
  • @The hound (Comment 36) :
    Your stayement about sponsorship is incorrect.

    The Economist magazine posts articals about prosports finances from time to time and the breakdown for the most successful teams and leagues are typically, one third TV, one third game-day and one third merchandize and sponsorship.

    For less sucessful teams and leagues, the gameday percentage goes down and the broadcast up.

  • Comment 48, posted at 21.04.17 14:07:01 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @Quintin (Comment 33) :

    Why present a detailed argument if your opinion is not based on it?

  • Comment 49, posted at 21.04.17 14:08:15 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @fyndraai (Comment 49) : Possibly the detail is provided for others to use to form an opinion, and is then accompanied by the author’s opinion…? Doesn’t have to be all black and white, methinks.

  • Comment 50, posted at 21.04.17 14:23:33 by Culling Song Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Culling Song
  • @fyndraai (Comment 48) : Whatever,Sponsorhip is a capitalist thing and it probably burns the libtard socialist are off of you.Take sponsorship out of the equation and you and Bernie and the other snowflakes would be watching lawn bowls on t.v.

  • Comment 51, posted at 21.04.17 14:36:18 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The hound
  • @Culling Song (Comment 50) : Sharks fan page – it’s all about the Black and White. 😉

  • Comment 52, posted at 21.04.17 14:36:47 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @fyndraai (Comment 28) : all those figures are there to show that although the Lions had a really super 2016 there’s still actually very little difference between them and the Cheetahs as far as overall performances in Super rugby. Choosing between them will thus be a personal opinion rather than a clear cut performance and financial based decision like the Kings.

  • Comment 53, posted at 21.04.17 16:52:33 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Hulk (Comment 41) : @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 47) : Hulk the NZ teams are separated entities from the ITM cup sides. Super rugby franchises are regional teams. Not sure about the other sides but I know the Blues is comprised of at least Auckland and North Harbour ITM teams.
    The SA teams originally was also regional teams. Coastal Sharks was comprised of EP, Border and the Sharks. They had to play certain amount of games at each unions home field (they had to play 1 game in PE and 1in East London and the Northern Bulls played 1 game in Witbank and 1 game in Brits) However what happens after year one or so was the bigger teams “bought” the hosting rights from the smaller unions as their stadiums could hold more people thus generate bigger income. Later on the smaller unions was bought out totally (or just cast aside).
    Personally I still believe the biggest problem with the Cats was the ±400km between the two teams that merged. In NZ distances is a lot less so it’s easier to manage (eg North Harbour and Auckland Blues are both in Auckland). Distance between Lions and Bulls is also a lot less so it should be a lot easier for the players to manage as they can practice while staying at home.

  • Comment 54, posted at 21.04.17 17:46:48 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @The hound (Comment 51) :

    Incorrect again.
    Sponsorship is not a driver. It follows crowd numbers and TV viewership. Without the latter, you never get the former.

    American liberal elites are not into lawn bowling. Try lacrosse.

  • Comment 55, posted at 21.04.17 17:49:36 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @Quintin (Comment 34) : @Culling Song (Comment 35) : @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 42) : thanks for the nice comments. Always a pleasure writing for Sharks world.

  • Comment 56, posted at 21.04.17 17:50:09 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @fyndraai (Comment 55) : Thats like the egg making a case for the chicken, or in your case Rachel Maddox with Trump’s tax returns.

  • Comment 57, posted at 21.04.17 18:05:31 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The hound
  • @fyndraai (Comment 49) : Man you are dense.

  • Comment 58, posted at 21.04.17 19:35:31 by Quintin Reply

  • @JD (Comment 53) :

    Financials is the primary reason why they had to make the cuts and will have to be the over riding consideration.
    The only numbers in your article that relates to financials are the average attendance list and those argue against the Cheetahs.

  • Comment 59, posted at 22.04.17 17:05:57 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @fyndraai (Comment 59) : OK so finance is the main factor. Let’s have a quick look at some financial facts of 2016 that I did not mention:
    Kings are bankrupt and SARU paid their Super rugby account.
    Sharks needed to sell shares to Super Sport or face possible bankruptcy.
    Stormers/WP filed for bankruptcy.
    So with finances being the most important factor then surely Bulls, Lions and Cheetahs (who actually showed a profit last year) would be save!?!?!?!
    OK I admit I was totally wrong Kings should be out at they clearly can’t pay their own wages that then leaves the Stormers and Sharks as the other team to be cut. With Stormers having way better attendance figure that will leave the Sharks as the other team to be cut.
    So SA teams for next season will be Bulls, Cheetahs, Lions and Stormers!

  • Comment 60, posted at 22.04.17 18:05:00 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @JD (Comment 60) :

    It’s no good looking at profit and loss statements either. A team that just invested in better players or facilities could be facing losses now but earn massive revenues in a year or two. Rugby teams are not for profit businesses anyway. They should use all ectra money to buy better players and better facilities.

    Revenues and potential revenues are the important considerations and that is for the most part driven by the size of the market the team operates in.
    In SA that would be JNB, CPT, DUR and PTA.
    Or if they choose to merge the Gauteng teams:

    The only thing the Cheetahs have going for them is that they have fairly widespread support as many people’s 2nd team or a favorite underdog, that may translate into TV viewership. Then one has to consider the impact dropping the Cheetahs may have on those numbers.

  • Comment 61, posted at 22.04.17 19:49:03 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.