Peter Williams: If stalemate persists, come on in Tokyo

Many a great mind has been thoroughly exercised in recent months trying to find a way out of the impasse among the Sanzar partners. South Africa on one side, New Zealand and Australia on the other as the deadline looms for negotiating a new TV rights deal.

The following is just an opinion as to how this darn mess might be sorted out.

The current deal for TV rights in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and the UK is worth US$323 million for five years, the last of which is 2010.

About 60 per cent of the value is in the Tri Nations international matches, which means the Super Rugby part of the contract is worth about US$130 million, or US$26 million a year. Because of their population and potential audience, about half of that value is in South Africa.

So here's the problem. If New Zealand and Australia were to go it alone in a transtasman rugby competition with, say, 10 teams playing a double round robin, followed by semifinals and a final, that's a 20-week competition which, based on the numbers above, would be worth only around US$16 million a year.

But the current contract was negotiated in the boom times of 2004 and 2005 to take effect in 2006. Not only has the world gone into recession since then but audience figures have dropped as sports fans suffer from saturation not just from rugby, but of sport at large.

Anyway, let's look on the bright side and say the broadcasters are feeling flush and prepared to offer a deal as good as the last one.

A 10-team transtasman competition, running for nine weeks in April and May, breaking for the international window in June and July, and resuming for the second round robin and playoffs would take us to a final in the middle of October.

The second half of the season could run concurrently with an expanded lower level competition involving provincial and state teams from both countries.

New Zealand provincial unions and state teams from around Australia, in three divisions of about 10 teams each, would have a competition developing players for both countries.

This system puts rugby back in the rugby season, starting in the autumn and finishing in the spring. The wear and tear on players would be reduced, meaning fewer injuries and longer careers. There would be less rugby, making it a more sought-after product for fans going to the grounds and watching on TV.

The international window could include tests against incoming teams from the Northern Hemisphere, as a well as alternating home and away annual matches against South Africa and Argentina, and the Bledisloe Cup games.

And after the big final in October, there's still time for the end of year tour to Europe.

But a scheme like this will never fly - simply because there's not enough rugby. Those paying for the TV rights want content, content and more content: quantity over quality.

However, funnily enough, ARU boss John O'Neill seems to be contemplating something similar, except he wants a couple of teams based in Japan as well. That's because involving a heavily-populated country can drive up the price of the TV rights.

Sanzar hopes to be around the negotiating table again this coming week in Dublin, and O'Neill reckons South Africa will come to its senses and stay in. I wouldn't be so sure. Besides, the idea of a Japan, Australia and New Zealand competition - we could call it JANZ - is actually quite appealing.

Goodbye Bulls, hello Tokyo Typhoons.