Open Letter to SANZAR: DEAL, or No DEAL

Gentlemen:

Over the past 48 hours there have been a number of reports emanating from New Zealand and Australia concerning a hybrid tournament of the Super 14.

Interesting proposals, but it clearly reveals the market is ready for change and that the SANZAR announcement last month of the expansion of the Super 14 finals to a Top Six play-offs series next year, does not adequately address the problematic issues SANZAR faces, besides which, you have contractual agreements which end 31st May 2010.

Please will you and your Unions consider the following solution for SANZAR, in advance of you visiting South Africa and provide us SANZAR Rugby Supporters with your comments so we can all progress this option.

In a Top Down exercise SANZAR expands the Tri-Nations to a Five Nations and simultaneously provides Super 14 rugby with an additional inventory and attractive rugby spectacle, by introducing a revamped Super 14 competition format with commercial sponsorships, to a greater television audience.

Not in 2010, but in 2008.

We suggest that SANZAR consider an option on the way forward to be:

1. The Tri-Nations expands to the Five Nations with the inclusion of Argentina and a composite Pacific Islands team. This can roll out in 2009.

2. The Super 14, still with 14 teams, could be as follows:

a. South Africa to have six (five plus one) franchises with the fifth-placed South African franchise in the Super 14, to play the sixth franchise in a relegation and promotion Tri-Game Series (Home, Away & Neutral territory)

b. New Zealand to have six (five plus one) franchises with the fifth- or last placed New Zealand franchise in the Super 14, to play the sixth franchise in a relegation and promotion Tri-Game Series (Home, Away & Neutral territory)

c. Australia to have five (four plus one) franchises with the fourth- or last placed Australian franchise in the Super 14, to play the fifth franchise in a relegation and promotion Tri-Game Series (Home, Away & Neutral Territory)

d. The three SANZAR franchises not competing in the Super 14 from Feb-May each year, play in a new round robin S14 Challenger Series tournament against an Argentinean side and a Pacific Islands side, which tournament is offered to free-to-air national television and radio broadcasters, in each of the SANZAR territories.

(This has the net effect of immediately slowing the migration of players to Europe by retaining each country’s player asset base and ensuring that the Super 14 rugby product, with the Top Six play-offs, is the optimum television viewing and commercial property with a remodelled, commercially viable product).

SANZAR, are now in the unique position of presenting a coherent, far reaching, strategic rugby solution in 2008, that is capable of remedying the enormous financial and political challenges we all face in our respective Unions.

Best of all it can be implemented with minimum to zero disruption of the existing Super 14 tournament that ends the 31st May 2010.

Please do advise us of your comments with a media statement within the next 4 weeks.

And you the Rugby Supporter go right ahead and make your voice heard.

Yours in Rugby,

South African, New Zealand & Australian rugby supporters.

TonyM you had me right up till when you suggested that Free to Air TV get the rights for the Challenger Series.

Super Rugby and the Tri-Nations are the invention and the property of Fox Sports. There is no way that they will let go of their "product" to something that they cannot take full advantage of.

Otherwise an excellent article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exile

Super Rugby and the Tri-Nations are the invention and the property of Fox Sports. There is no way that they will let go of their "product" to something that they cannot take full advantage of.

---

You may be right there X. But they don't run the teams or the competitions AFAIK. JO'N talks about negotiating with Fox for future TV rights. So if Fox does own the "Tri Nations" & "Super Rugby" is there anything stopping the SANZAR unions from pulling out and implementing new structures with new names for which TV rights could be sold?

To use the example of the ARC - RugbyWA were not allowed to use similar names nor Jerseys designs to the Western Force - it was all "owned" by Fox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyM

Gentlemen:

Over the past 48 hours there have been a number of reports emanating from New Zealand and Australia concerning a hybrid tournament of the Super 14.

Interesting proposals, but it clearly reveals the market is ready for change and that the SANZAR announcement last month of the expansion of the Super 14 finals to a Top Six play-offs series next year, does not adequately address the problematic issues SANZAR faces, besides which, you have contractual agreements which end 31st May 2010.

Please will you and your Unions consider the following solution for SANZAR, in advance of you visiting South Africa and provide us SANZAR Rugby Supporters with your comments so we can all progress this option.

In a Top Down exercise SANZAR expands the Tri-Nations to a Five Nations and simultaneously provides Super 14 rugby with an additional inventory and attractive rugby spectacle, by introducing a revamped Super 14 competition format with commercial sponsorships, to a greater television audience.

Not in 2010, but in 2008.

---

The 2008 season has already finished (Tahs were awesome) so I can't see how..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyM

We suggest that SANZAR consider an option on the way forward to be:

1. The Tri-Nations expands to the Five Nations with the inclusion of Argentina and a composite Pacific Islands team. This can roll out in 2009.

---

The cream of players from Argentina's and PI are contracted in Europe. They won't get released, and I don't see any advantage in putting 100+ scores on their B sides in a diluted 3N tournament would be[/quote]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyM

2. The Super 14, still with 14 teams, could be as follows:

a. South Africa to have six (five plus one) franchises with the fifth-placed South African franchise in the Super 14, to play the sixth franchise in a relegation and promotion Tri-Game Series (Home, Away & Neutral territory)

b. New Zealand to have six (five plus one) franchises with the fifth- or last placed New Zealand franchise in the Super 14, to play the sixth franchise in a relegation and promotion Tri-Game Series (Home, Away & Neutral territory)

---

SANZAR nations choose whom they enter from their team allocation. Additionally they have existing NPC and Currie Cups and wouldn't take to the idea of having promotion/relegation imposed on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyM

c. Australia to have five (four plus one) franchises with the fourth- or last placed Australian franchise in the Super 14, to play the fifth franchise in a relegation and promotion Tri-Game Series (Home, Away & Neutral Territory)

---

We're struggling with depth to field 4 competitive teams, a 5th would dilute it further. Then when one team is excluded from the S14, what would happen to their contracted players? 6 matches against Arg B and PI hybrid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyM

d. The three SANZAR franchises not competing in the Super 14 from Feb-May each year, play in a new round robin S14 Challenger Series tournament against an Argentinean side and a Pacific Islands side, which tournament is offered to free-to-air national television and radio broadcasters, in each of the SANZAR territories.

(This has the net effect of immediately slowing the migration of players to Europe by retaining each country’s player asset base and ensuring that the Super 14 rugby product, with the Top Six play-offs, is the optimum television viewing and commercial property with a remodelled, commercially viable product).

---

How about the Pacific Nations Cup just continues? PI's keep their proud identies, Japan continues to improve..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyM

SANZAR, are now in the unique position of presenting a coherent, far reaching, strategic rugby solution in 2008, that is capable of remedying the enormous financial and political challenges we all face in our respective Unions.

---

tickets are already sold for the remaining games in 2008. Maybe we need to run with the ball and think out of the box with a glass half full attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyM

Best of all it can be implemented with minimum to zero disruption of the existing Super 14 tournament that ends the 31st May 2010.

---

Apart from huge logistical changes if you swap which teams are playing. Suddenly budgets are cut and players/staff can't be paid. Draws are worked out over a 6(?) year period so that home/away games even out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exile

To use the example of the ARC - RugbyWA were not allowed to use similar names nor Jerseys designs to the Western Force - it was all "owned" by Fox

---

i dont think Fox own the Reds name or there jersey in anyway though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TOCC

i dont think Fox own the Reds name or there jersey in anyway though

---

Interesting point though. Were NSW and Qld officially and legally just those previous to Super Rugby with nicknames "Reds" & "Waratahs" or were the nicknames adopted legally when they became Super Rugby franchises?

I didn't realise Fox had such binding rights over Rugby like X pointed out. Got a bit of an uneasy feeling about that. They pretty well control the NRL as well.

TonyM, I hope you're not using the poll to necessarily imply that I agree with your particular model by voting yes... Cos I did :)

The earliest reference to NSW Rugby being the Waratahs that I can find in 1927/28. Besides, I doubt Rupert has many rights to our state flower..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

I doubt Rupert has many rights to our state flower..

---

No, I doubt it and I doubt he has rights over our wild horses or cyclones(?) either. But maybe he has rights to any Rugby franchise named Waratahs/Brumbies/Force? I don't now how these things work or even if Fox has those type of rights if they do.

What's a Force anyway?

I voted no cause I quite like the current Super 14 structure. I've got quite a few saffa friends so it's good to have that rivalry when they come to town.

An expanded finals series would be good, but I don't think there's any need for more teams, nor do we or the South Africans have the depth to have additional competitive teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

What's a Force anyway?

---

The energy and resources that prop up the Australian economy. :)

The structure of the Super 14 remains the same - only a new feeder tournament and a relegation and promotion series in each country is introduced.

If you are going to get teams that are regularly whipped they drop out and play in the lower Challenger Series.

SANZAR owns the rights to the S14 and Newscorp buys into the Super 14.

A new tournament under the S14 brings in new viewers and new sponsors that will benefit the S14 and Newscorp - all round a Win - Win that the Aussies have a taste of.

BEIGE - no need to feel shy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moses

What's a Force anyway?

---

A Force is a force, of course, of course.

1. Physical power or strength possessed by a living being.
2. Strength or power exerted.
3. Strength; energy; power; intensity.
4. Power to influence, affect, or control.

Say no more. :)

relegation just wouldnt work in any country in super rugby, the logistics and money involved would be insane!

look at rugby league and how they suffered through super league when teams changed names, locations and colours, rugby needs to build more bases to attract viewers and supporters, doing this will create more money! more money = less players leaving, more money =better competition!