Randell: SA doesn’t deserve 6 team



Former All Black captain Taine Randell is against the idea of South Africa getting six Super Rugby teams.

A scheduled meeting of SANZAR’s Executive Committee took place in Sydney last Thursday where the future of Super Rugby was among the agenda items. SANZAR CEO Greg Peters confirmed that the preferred model likely to be adopted involves six teams from South Africa and a new team from Argentina.

However, Randell believes South Africa lacks the depth to warrant a sixth team in Super Rugby.

In his regular column on the stuff.co.nz website, Randell wrote:

“First of all, the South Africans. Having taken the wooden spoon in 13 of the 18 years Super Rugby has existed, South Africa has no right to another team. “Already their talent depth has proved to be too shallow with five teams. Adding another will only stretch that further. “And let’s not forget that the Springboks continue to rely heavily on selecting players who ply their trade offshore, collecting big money contracts in Britain, France and Japan.

“We will expect the Southern Kings to return to the mix in 2016. They finished last in their one-off season last year only to be replaced by the Lions who have had a long history of struggles. Nothing will change there,” wrote Randell.

Randell does support the idea of getting Argentina involved but says they should have two franchises in an 18-team competition.

“Rather than 17 teams, I believe a Super 18 might be a better way to go and if we are going to hold out a helping hand to Argentina, then perhaps we should have offered them two teams.”

Source: Sport24

Facebook Comments
Better known as Bunny, Took over after Pissant went over to the "Dark Side"


  1. Idiot!!! and Argentina have the players to make up two teams??

    I do not like this expansion but what Morne said the other day make sense, give us then the 70% cut of the money we bring in your arrogant idiot and you share the 30% with your Aus-Mob.

  2. Tell us something we do not know already…

    South Africa does not deserve another bottom dwelling politically appointed side.

    They do not even have the depth for 5 teams let alone the fact this 6th team enforces the entire competition to be restructured… again…

  3. No Bryce here is how it works…

    We bring iin 70% of the mooney whiich we need to share equally…

    How about we bring 70% mooney and KEEP 70% of the money

    Then New zealand will be questioned whether they van hhave two teams and Australia ONE whilst we will have enough mooney to actually fight off Euros and GBPs and afford to have 70% of the SR sides…

    And if we get back the players from even 2nd tier sides in Ireland, wales, England and France and bottom to mid table ones in first diivisions we will have all the player base we need to dominate Superrugby forever.

    As it is now, we are bringing in 70% of the cash and get 30% of the cash and last year we STILL managed to get THREE sides in the play ooffs… imagine we KEEP 70% of the cash we generate… hell we can fund four moore sides AND be competitive… if we just have six and 70% of the cash Australia and New Zealand rugby dies…

  4. @DavidS:

    a> I do not believe the 70% of the ‘money’ figures it is broad-casting ‘viewership’ at the very most.

    b> I have already shown on numerous occasions that Super Rugby money is a mere blip on the ARU and NZRU income statements (less that 10%).

    c> Super Rugby works only because of the top 3 countries in world rugby, the might of Foxsports and the advertising markets of Australia (where almost every RSA bluechip is trying to grab a hold of).

    d> none of the above matters… there should be no 6th team included into Super Rugby due to RSA’s own political inadequacies. Australians and New Zealanders don’t give a damn about ANC political wrangling in sports… particularly not their own.

  5. Oh and just to finish Dawie… adding another team to the South African franchises ‘dilutes’ their current share of the Foxsports money… it doesn’t increase it.

    Only professional negotiation does that… not a 6th team.

  6. @bryce_in_oz: Bryce, have to say I am with you on this one for a whole host of reasons and Taine is right, SA historically has supplied the lion’s share of cellar dweller sides in Superrugby which in pure rugby terms, argues against us getting rewarded with a 6th team. Arguing that because SA brings in more broadcasting bucks than Aus and NZ, it deserves a 6th team is weak. More TV viewer $’s does not = better rugby players or SA sides would have won the Superrugby comp more often and not have so many sides in the bottom half of the comp year after year.

    You may not agree, but it is generally believed in NZ that Aussie rugby sides chances of winning the comp went out the window when you guys introduced a 4th and 5th Superugby side and diluted your player base. Now SA wants to go the same route?

  7. @out wide:

    The Reds (an Australian team) won the very 1st S15 title.

    If that thing about Aus’ chances going out the window with a 5th team is really generally believed in NZ then the “general” NZ public is seriously stupid.

  8. @out wide:

    My points are simple…

    – A 6th RSA team is not going to increase revenue to RSA teams but dilute it.

    – The competition instantly becomes unworkable and more teams ‘have’ to be introduced further diluting earnings (for everyone)

    – It’s debatable whether this political pressuring into a 6th team will have any effect in ‘quality’ depth. Punters mention how the Force has ‘x’ amount of foreigners in their team… well even with the Lions out and a huge player base the Kings had to employ the exact amount of non- South African players into their squad and still ended up as wooden-spooners.

  9. @bryce_in_oz: Re your comment about the 6th SA team and Argentinian side requiring that the comp be restructured again there was something in The Press here in NZ today suggesting the new format might be 2 conferences instead of 3 with Oz and NZ sides lumped in one conference and SA sides and the Argentinian side in the other conference? This could be awkward as one conference will be stronger and have 10 sides that have historically finished higher on the log and then a weaker conference consisting of 7 sides?

    The writer, Richard Knowler says NZ coaches hit the roof when they heard about the new SANZAR deal and that the NZRU board needs to demand answers from staff members involved in brokering the new deal. Interesting …

  10. @Timeo: Yes, but you are missing the point. It is not as simple as which nation wins the damn comp. Have a look at the rest of the sides’s performances. This is what Taine is on about in his objection to a 6th SA side and why it is not off the mark to think that Australian player strength has been diluted.

    In the 10 years of S12, Australian sides did relatively well, more than half their sides occupying the bottom half of the log at the end of the season only 30% of the time. Come 2006 and the introduction of S14 and the Western Force and that figure jumps to near 50% of the time. Since 2011 when S15 and the Melbourne Rebels appeared, for 3 years in a row more than half the Aussie sides ended the season in the bottom half of the log.

    I think some NZ punters are wiser than we like to give them credit for, even if the comments are made over a beer or six!

    I think it is generally acknowledged that Superugby is the toughest rugby comp outside of international rugby and I guess the question kiwi’s are asking is, who brings greater value to the competition? The nation whose sides play better rugby and year on year prop up the top half of the log? Or do you ignore the rugby and evaluate success in pure $ terms of crowd and tv viewer numbers? If it is the latter then surely some European or British comp is the best?

  11. The website pick-and-go has a Super Rugby ranking system based on a similar principle to how the IRB ranks test playing nations.

    It is worked out since the 1st Super 12 game was played in 1996.

    The rankings are as follow:

    1 Chiefs
    2 Crusaders
    3 Reds
    4 Brumbies
    5 Stormers
    6 Sharks
    7 Bulls
    8 Waratahs
    9 Cheetahs
    10 Lions
    11 Hurricanes
    12 Highlanders
    13 Rebels
    14 Blues
    15 Force

    Now if we allocate points per position (let’s say in reverse order where the #1 rank team gets 15 points and the last ranked team 1) and group this by country it will look like this:

    SA 43
    NZ 40
    Aus 37

    The money generated from the broadcasting deal is not the be all and end all when the commercial value of Super Rugby is determined – mere participation or guaranteed participation is massively important aspect to generate income through sponsorship for each franchise. This is not merely the sponsors you see on the jersey’s, it is selling season tickets, suites, stadium vendor agreements, stadium naming rights, perimeter boards, etc, etc, etc.

    So two things here stand out for me. Throughout the history of Super Rugby, ignoring actual Cup winnings, SA as a country ranks higher than the other two participating nations and this is from an independent ranking system, not something I sucked out of my ass.

    The relegation of the Lions and Kings respectively gives anyone who cares to see a clear indication of the commercial importance, and ability to hold onto players, in Super Rugby participation.

    South Africa is by far the most powerful when it comes to the physical numbers at games (stadium attendances) and the viewership numbers on television. We bring the commercial clout to this competition, we should see the value.

    And it seems we are more deserved of additional teams than any given how we ranked since 1996…

  12. So here is my suggestion…

    Remove the bottom 4 teams according to the overall Super Rugby ranking system since 1996 and add the Kings. We will be back to only 12 teams, the worst performing bottom 4 teams are removed – everyone is happy!

  13. Keep dreaming antipodeans… keep dreaming…

    The way the Aussies can’t find sponsors for their sides and the Kiwis’ big copycat of the SA model “privatization and sell” move came to fork all…

    SANZAR cash comes from here in South Africa…

    Let me ask you thusly

    Look at soccer… which league is the best… Brazil? England?

    Brazil has never lost to the Pongos at a world cup… yet the British league is the richest on earth after the Spanish one…

    So yah which draws the cash and the players and the talent and the viwership…

    The British one….

    Surely you can see that the ONLY evaluation of success is sponsorship and television coverage and money generated which is why taking another cut from NZRU and ARU spells their doom… and they can become the poverty stricken little rugby vassals they should be were it not for big brother Boer who can’t negotiate…

    Time to pucker up Taine… smile and wave at the Boer and say thank you his people love the game so much they pay your salary…

  14. @out wide:

    Teams at the top and teams at the bottom, are really immaterial as far as the location of professional sports teams are concerned.

    Value flows from the fans. Fans tie themselves to a place. Players are highly mobile. The sensible thing for any sports league to do them to locate the teams and the players to where the fans want them to be.

    I agree that adding more teams will dilute the revenues too much. They need to go back to the 14 team format, but it should be 6 SA teams, 5 Aus teams and 3 NZ teams. Fans really do not care where the players were born. The excess NZ talent, should simply be allowed to follow the teams. The quality of games will not suffer, attendance will be higher, as will TV revenues, and there will be less dilution.

    There is nothing political in that. The long established successful pro sports leagues in the world all follow the model of mobile players. If Rugby wants to thrive, they should too.

  15. So let’s for arguement sake take outwide and bryce at their word and say that SA teams are the worst in the competition. So we remove them and make it a NZAR tournament, top10 we call it. Now we all force multichoice not to broadcast these matches, so we saffas dont watch it.

    Now we have NZ guys happy cos Saffas are generally just too loud and their teams are pisspoor. But now where does the big money come from? Who is to replace us? Oh wait, no one. So bankrupt goes the ARU and NZ, overseas goes their best players and number 6 and 7 in world rugby becomes their national teams. All this because of them not wanting one more rugby team from south africa in the competition. Now I will be told that the powerhouse NZ will never drop so far. But honestly, without cash in the pro era, how long will they last? Just a question.

  16. One may also make the argument that the system was the very reason why SA teams struggled.

    Super-12, neglected large numbers of fans in the EC and central parts of South Africa. Those lost revenues, coupled with SA fans subsidizing NZ teams, resulted in talent draining from SA to Europe. On top of that you had the heavier travel burden and the flawed “neutral” referee system.

    Super-14, added fans and revenues in SA, shifted the travel burden against NZ and favoured referee quality over “neutrality”.
    Super star talent, returned to, or stayed in South Africa.

    SA teams dominated.

    Super-15 is a disaster for SA rugby. The travel burden has shifted back against the SA teams. Even more so during the play-offs.
    Poor performances and less play-off matches resulted in lost revenues in SA. Now further dilution by the maintenance of a non-playing team.
    Lured by the double attraction of more money and less travel, talent is streaming out of SA again.

  17. “Neutral” referees?

    I find it extremely unlikely that a New Zealander would always be a neutral judge between Australians and South Africans.

    Or an Australian, between New Zealanders and South Africans.

    Add to that the fact that SA rugby felt a debt of gratitude towards NZ and some resentment towards Aus., and you had a “neutral” referee system tilted for NZ and against South African teams.

  18. @Aldo: An interesting scenario you raise and NZ and Aus would be poorer in a rugby sense if they lost games v SA Superugby sides. The Saffers add variety as they play a very different style of rugby and Superugby remains the best feeder comp around for national side selection for this and other reasons.

    However in $ terms you and David make a mistake if you think that without the fabled millions of dollars coming from all these SA spectators and tv viewers, Aus and NZ rugby will disappear. This has been discussed before but David seems hellbent on predicting doom and gloom for the NZRU . Funny I don’t see any of that living here and I think Bryce has spelled it out succinctly above on how little Superugby means to the bottom line of the national rugby budgets.

  19. Thanks Morne. Interesting stats Pick and Go has but you do have to wonder about a system that ranks the Stormers above the Bulls over the 18 years and has the Blues at 14. Stormers supporters would be delighted but does the fact that they have never won the Superugby crown and the Bulls (and Blues) have won it 3 times not count? I guess not?

    On which point I would ask Timeo how he came to the conclusion that in the S14 years of ’06 to ’10 “SA teams dominated”? Perhaps you are just looking at the period during which SA teams won the comp the most? Looking at how the SA teams as a whole fared would seem more logical as Taine has used and for every year of the S14 more than half of SA sides ended in the bottom half of the log. A bad time for SA sides.

    Interestingly, for the entire S15 and its conference system, SA sides by the same analysis have fared well and for the last 3 years we have had more than half our sides ending in the top half of the log. A suggestion SA sides prefer the conference system with its reduced load of travel perhaps?

  20. Okay this has become boring, where is my Steve cd? I see the Bulls are hunting Juan Smith, but will probably only be for cc, not before that. It would be great if he does sign on the dotted line and accept the T&c’s, which would be to start listening to steve hoffmeyer and wear khaki clothing, which I suspect he allready does.

    In other good news, the Bulls are at the forefront of fashion, I watched ftv last night, perving on some hot young ladies and I see that camo is the new in thing for the season. And you guys thought us crasy!

  21. @out wide:

    It is exactly the same as how the IRB ranks nations. NZ were the top team since rankings came into place at test level yet last won the RWC in 87 before the 2011 event. Teams are allocated more points in semi’s and finals (similar to what happens with IRB ranking points in the RWC).

    The rankings indicate consistency, not championship trophies.

  22. @out wide:

    SA won 3 out of 5 championships and hosted 8 out of 13 play-off matches.

    Average log positions are of little concern. I don’t know any fans that’ll get excited about their team always finishing in 7th place.

  23. @Timeo: Ha ha, you are right that might not be a source of excitement. Not wanting to labour the issue, back to Taine’s original comments above, he had 2 valid points which argued against us deserving to get a 6th side

    1. SA sides have ended last 13 / 18 years (72% of the time!)
    2. Allied to this, we have a lack of depth for 5 teams already – how does one evaluate the depth we have? Not by how many times one or two of our sides win the comp or appear in playoffs (may have more do with the size of their chequebooks) but how well the overall 5 teams do eg. how many end in the bottom half- hence you might well be excited by your team ending 7 in a 15 team comp as they have ended in the top half of the comp!http://www.ruggaworld.com/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/graemlins/pot.gif

  24. @Aldo:

    Guys – stop arguing about the rugby – Aldo just came out of the closet…

    “I watched ftv last night”

    And then he tries to justify it if there is a backlash.

    “perving on some hot young ladies”

    Moenie worry nie Aldo – Ons verstaan – dit was die pienk truie wat dit begin het ne?


  25. Ugh poor man’s bikini beach sucks Dawie, they blank out all the nice bits.

    Methos, a south african born french chef that plays rugby, hehe very funny combo. But alas, a real man is able to watch ftv with the missus and like it.