KEY POINTS:
THERE ARE mixed feelings within New Zealand rugby circles about the US-style revamp proposed for Super Rugby.
Not everyone, it seems, is wearing a big smile on their dial now that the New Zealand Rugby Union has briefed the franchises about their vision for the Sanzar tournament.
There is still plenty of work to be done around the detail of the proposal. The NZRU team that has been working on ways to restructure Super 14 has come up with the idea of expanding to Super 18 with five franchises each in New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. An additional three franchises would be based in each Sanzar nation - a Pacific Islands team in New Zealand, Japanese team in Australia and an Argentinian side in South Africa.
A conference-style format on geographic lines has been mooted, with more detail on how the inter-conference matches are scheduled to be worked through.
In the next month or so a full proposal will be presented to the NZRU board to approve before that plan is then taken to the Sanzar partners with a view to having a unanimously agreed format in front of broadcaster News Corporation by September.
Sanzar has given itself a tight timeline, which is why meetings have been scheduled over the next few weeks with officials from Argentina, USA, Canada, Pacific Islands and Japan. Ideas will no doubt evolve after those discussions and there is a feeling they will have to as the Super 18 concept has left plenty of stakeholders cold.
The New Zealand Players Association certainly hopes the NZRU have other concepts in mind. Rob Nichol, who heads the NZRPA, says the Super 18 concept as presented would fail to achieve specific key principles.
"That idea conjures some concerns," said Nichol, "as it feels more like a politically driven concept to satisfy the three Sanzar nations. I'm not convinced that would be enough of an evolution to engage the fans and there is a feeling that this would be serving up more of the same old same old.
"We have to go back to the core objectives and make sure we are ticking all the boxes. We need a competition that engages the fans. The players have to enjoy playing in it. I am not sure this idea offers enough opportunity to private investors or whether it will attract the best commercial partners. And ultimately we have to ask, would this transform Super 14 into the best competition in the world?"
What Nichol and many others including senior players, coaches and administrators would like to see is a dedicated Sanzar unit set up to administer the new competition which would put franchise licences out to tender.
In New Zealand that would mean dismantling the geographic restrictions around selection and would decouple the provinces from the franchises.
Instead of players being contracted to a province to determine which Super 14 team they would be eligible for, franchises should be free to contract who they like.
Franchises in New Zealand would probably remain based in the same cities as they are now - Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin - and if the Auckland franchise needed a first five they would simply make an offer to the player they wanted regardless of where that individual was currently based.
As is the case in Australia, international players could have their contracts topped up by the NZRU.
The tight deadlines Sanzar is hoping to meet has reduced the likelihood of the NZRU looking at some of the left-field options coming from some administrators.
As the Herald on Sunday revealed last month, TV viewing figures for games played in New Zealand in the first nine rounds of this year's Super 14 were on average down 21 per cent.
With the player exodus also increasing at damaging pace, all three nations have agreed, with encouragement from their respective domestic media partners, that it would be beneficial for the game if they could get their new competition up and running in 2010 - a year before the existing broadcast contract expires.
So there just isn't time to look at the concept tabled by Auckland Rugby chairman, Ken Baguley, who has come up with an alternative proposal to build the new competition around the provinces.
Such thinking might sound regressive. The franchise concept is too entrenched now to be overhauled and with most provinces down to the knuckle in terms of finance, it can't possibly be realistic to build a commercially successful professional competition around the likes of Northland and Bay of Plenty.
Baguley disagrees and his rationale for promoting the provinces ahead of the franchise concept is grounded on solid foundations.
"The question had to be asked whether the franchise concept has been a success and the answer would have to be probably not.
"When you look at the distribution model [financial] it just doesn't make any sense and then there is also the fact that politics tends to play a part in the franchise.
"One of the questions I have asked is whether it is possible to build a competition around the provinces and generate sufficient income to keep our players here?
"If the provinces owned the broadcast rights and were able to distribute the money between themselves and we were able to form something like Auckland Rugby inc, in conjunction with another private shareholder, then it would be interesting to see how much income we could generate."
Really, though, the logic of building provinces comes down to two factors that are continually overlooked in the current environment. First, spectators need an emotional attachment to their team. The All Blacks have a massive following not just because they continue to win, but also because New Zealanders feel a passionate connection with their national team.
Provinces have simple lines of allegiance and long histories to evoke emotion. Second, the franchise system has been fraught with politics since its inception in 1996. The Blues in particular have not always enjoyed harmonious relations as a result of having three major provinces in their catchment area.
The Chiefs, too, have had friction between Waikato and Bay of Plenty and have endured several boundary changes that damaged the franchise's sense of identity.
Baguley, though, is realistic enough to concede that his plan will not get a look in. The franchise model is the one the NZRU will retain but he rightly holds concerns about how the tiers below Super Rugby are structured and funded to ensure there are career pathways to the professional game.
The NZRU has not won anyone over with their Super 18 concept. The feedback they are receiving is that much more has to be done - that the vision has to be bolder, more visionary and that within that, the game still has to be connected to the grassroots.
Most importantly they are being told to think beyond their own desire to satisfy the Sanzar partnership politically and deliver a competition that engages fans, players and commercial partners.
