Gregor Paul: Super 15 threatens matches in January

The time is coming when the New Zealand Rugby Union is going to have to make an impossible decision.

South Africa have emphasised they are not willing to budge on the start date of an expanded Super 15 - they have said late January but will probably accept early February.

The South Africans have also made it clear they are in belligerent mood - a point clarified when chief executive Andy Marinos said last week: "The days that other countries walk all over us are over. We will do what we feel is right for South Africa, within the Sanzar context, and nothing else."

New Zealand and Australia are being backed into a corner and it is one they will have to box cleverly out of, as South Africa, with their bigger population and time zone that is aligned with Europe's, bring in the lion's share of broadcast dollars.

As the Herald on Sunday exclusively revealed last week, an alternative new competition is being researched where five Australian teams, five New Zealand teams and a team each from Japan and the Pacific Islands form a Super 12.

South Africa would be free to organise themselves how they liked, with a specified number of teams from each conference coming together for a finals series later in the year. This alternative scenario gets round the clash over start dates.

The Australasian competition can begin in the preferred slot of early March and finish before the June test window. As long as the South Africans, who could include North American teams in their competition, also have their playoff teams confirmed, the finals series could start in late June and be finished by late July before the Currie Cup.

If the Tri Nations is reduced to two rounds, it could be finished in time to leave Springboks free to play a meaningful role in the Currie Cup.

It doesn't sound like a bad plan, except for the fact that neither the NZRU nor the Australian Rugby Union can be confident about the potential value of the broadcast rights. As much as the NZRU should be encouraged to build a tournament that works for the fans and players first and the money men second, there has to be some realism.

If the alternative competition comes with a significant drop in income, it will impact on the NZRU's ability to keep players and fund the grassroots of the game. Can they take that risk?

But to reach agreement on the preferred proposal - the Super 15 split into geographic conferences - they will have to agree to the late January/early February start.

NZRU chief executive Steve Tew says the reluctance to start in February is driven largely by commercial concerns, although there are also player welfare issues.

"I think we have seen over a number of years now that the New Zealand public is not ready for rugby in January and February.

"It is too early for the fans and the players. There are real concerns about playing rugby in January in places like Brisbane and Durban.

"We would also prefer a longer off-season for our All Blacks. Even though it is actually only a small number of players who are really affected by an early start, these players are particularly important."

Tew says that right now, neither the NZRU nor ARU are willing to budge on the March start date. So the scenario is potentially this - the NZRU will have to work out whether less income from the alternative Australasian concept is preferable to starting earlier as per the preferred three conferenced option.

If the financial numbers really don't stack up, how much of a compromise are all parties willing to make? Can the NZRU persuade the South Africans to start in mid-February? Or will New Zealand and Australia simply have to accept what the South Africans want?