Saru makes O’Neill’s blood boil
20 Apr 2009
Australian rugby boss John O’Neill is growing increasingly frustrated by Saru’s non-committal towards details of a Super Rugby expansion.
Reports in The Herald on Sunday reported that Saru is making plans for a shortened version of the Currie Cup from 2011. This would include six teams and would begin in late July, allowing the mooted Super 15 competition to start in March – which would suit the Australasians.
However, O’Neill was wary of believing the reports.
Saru have stated that maintaining the Currie Cup is of paramount importance, but O’Neill has repeatedly disregarded this as the Australians have no domestic competition of their own.
This has stalled Sanzar negotiations and O’Neill is becoming increasingly frustrated as the 30 June deadline with broadcasters looms.
‘We’re still talking. It’s very ambiguous at the moment. I think all the moving so far has been by Australia and New Zealand, that’s the truth of it, and you get to a point where you can’t move any more,” said O’Neill.
‘Australia and New Zealand have shifted, and all we have out of South Africa is the press release that came out, which I’ve held up to the light and I still don’t understand it,’ he said.
‘I’m sure we’ll hear more this week, but it’s a very difficult negotiation.’
All Blacks captain Richie McCaw supported South Africa’s continued involvement in Super Rugby and O’Neill said this would be first prize.
‘Inevitably you always have a plan B. Our preference is still very much a Super 15, a round and a half [24 weeks], what we call the Perth outcome,’ said O’Neill.
‘We’ve been absolutely consistent about that. We shifted to the Sandton option which was a compromise and we’re still waiting to hear what conditions that South Africa is attaching to the Sandton option.
‘But if you end up with a complete impasse, we’ve got a game in Australia and New Zealand that requires a big chunk of mass entertainment product.
‘If it can’t include South Africa then trans-Tasman and Asia-Pacific options have to be looked at.’
139 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
21 Apr 2009, 09:18 am
#71 poppa69:
And you knew how vocal or otherwise I was 30 years ago?
Don’t jump to conclusions, plonker.
It’s a racist concept, end of story.
21 Apr 2009, 09:24 am
#100 RugbyRulz:
Aaah, but if you had to practice Judaism to be eligible for slection…now there’s the difference.
Sorry, guys, put whatever spin you wihs on it. None was…and that’s because you simply cannot defend the indefensible.
21 Apr 2009, 09:35 am
What’s more, poppa, had you any real appreciation of South Africa’s history, you’ll know that we voted in a 1992 referundum, overwhelmingly, to proceed to non-racial democratic elections.
These took place in 1994, with a non-racial constitution the envy of the world.
Yes, we have a shameful history but most South Africans today – apart from Neanderthal whites on the right and the Azanian mob on the left – appredciate that if we’re all to enjoy a future, we must embrace non-racialism.
I have, and I will criticise racist practice whenever and wherever it rears its head.
And if it happens to be your darling Maori team, tough ****.
21 Apr 2009, 09:36 am
#101 Joe Maher: another blogger that has to resort to name calling, fark… cant any of you argue a point without resorting to the lowest denominator ???
21 Apr 2009, 09:38 am
#104 poppa69:
Well, when you jump to conclusions, based on precisely what I do not know, it’s fair to call the jumper’s behaviour ‘plonker-ish’, surely?
21 Apr 2009, 09:39 am
#103 Joe Maher: a non racial constitution the envy of the world… so how do quotas fit into this world envied constitution ?
21 Apr 2009, 09:42 am
Joe you seem to have a problem understanding that race, religion & culture are not all the same thing. To try to lump them all into the same category as RACISM is crazy. They are not at all alike.
21 Apr 2009, 09:44 am
#105 Joe Maher: arent you jumping to the same conclusions ? a team of coloured people in SA would be racist, simply because of your past… we in NZ dont have that kind of history, and we have one of the most multicultural societies in the world. So we pay homage to our indigenous people by formulating a team that they can showcase their talents in, and anyone of those players can play for the national team if good enough… something that didnt happen in SA for many years…
21 Apr 2009, 09:47 am
#106 poppa69:
well how would i put it
…
in rugby (and cricket) terms most of my so called quotas are the envy of the rugby (and cricket) playing world?
21 Apr 2009, 10:02 am
Whether or not one has quotas we all have to consider the cultural side of things… South Africa has a constitution that is clearly non-racial yet hypocritically selects using a quota system. The process has been foisted upon the public due to dragging ar$e; one cannot deny the trickle effect. Finally we are seeing the talent that can be plumbed (Habana, Petersen, etc).
I do see the political agenda, refusing to play a team that appears to be selected on racial lines as this flies in the face of progress. Hopefully further steps will not be needed! One can only imagine how the stuck pigs will squeal if the quota number was reversed. Best for all to be truly honest with the rainbow speak.
21 Apr 2009, 10:09 am
Why was the Maori tour cancelled exactly?
I heard something about financial reasons, and therefor we are playing Namibia instead?
Why invite them in the first place, and then withdraw the invite, bloody rude, I’d say.
That Saru bunch, eisssshhh….
21 Apr 2009, 10:09 am
#106 poppa69:
That’s the sadness of it all.
On paper, it is a constitution that is the envy of the world.
Alas, we have not been that flash in adhering to it.
21 Apr 2009, 10:11 am
#110 RugbyRulz:
SARU constitution still racist, eg it specifies a ‘white’selector, a ‘coloured’(sic) and a black ‘selector’, the last time I read it.
21 Apr 2009, 10:18 am
#110 RugbyRulz:
I’m afraid I can’t agree with the ‘dragging arse’ theory.
Quotas are applied because they’re the easy ‘fix’.
The hard work is to allocate real money and resources to previously disadvantaged areas, level the playing field (as best possible in an intrinsically unequal world) and give everyone the opportunity to go as far as his or her talents will take them.
Then select on merit alone.
But that’s too hard, the SA Govt has done jack shite to promote the game, take it to the disadvantaged, pour money into it. Jack shite.
Check the record books.
Yet it shouts its mouth, ‘demands’ a certain representation.
And, by the way, what makes Bryan Habana (educated at King Edward VII School in Jo’burg’s leaft Houghton suburb) and Herschelle Gibbs (educated at the even more leafy Bishops) disadvantaged?
Is Koos du Plessis, the product of a white working class family and educated at a down-at-heel state school with poor facilities, barred from being disadvantaged because of his skin colour?
You see, that’s why this ‘quota’ thing is such a nonsense.
21 Apr 2009, 10:18 am
#112 Joe Maher: I understand, progress takes time… look at the US as a prime example, even they still struggle with their factions today.
To me personally, I dont consider it a racially motivated team… but I get that from having been immersed in the culture.
I can see how to non kiwis that they may consider it as such.
guess we will have to agree to disagree
21 Apr 2009, 10:37 am
#114 Joe Maher: Time will take care of all. It doesn’t happen overnight it takes generations. Years of healing before we all really look at each other as one. It will come.
21 Apr 2009, 11:46 am
#65 poppa69:
Just ignore the idiot. He insults everyone, namecalling etc. Im guessing he has shortcomings downstairs.
21 Apr 2009, 11:51 am
#72 RugbyRulz:
The only people you will call the NZ Maoris team ‘racist’ is Sth Africans.
That means the problem is theirs, noone elses. So dont be offended, they just see things that arent there. Understandably but regrettably.
NZ Maoris ROCK. Carlos Spencer, after a long AB career, said the NZ Maoris jersey was the one that made him most proud. And every Kiwi understood what he meant.
21 Apr 2009, 11:51 am
#117 BlackPanther:
You the master of shortcomings? Fox smells his own hole dude!
21 Apr 2009, 12:06 pm
#118 BlackPanther:
Carlos Spencer? You mean Queen Carlos? He your hero? Doos of note.
I think it is a simple case of not openning both eyes. If the Pakeha wanted to pick a rugger side would you have a problem? (The fact that it may be a shite side is besides the point). If so why? No Kiwi seems to be able to answer that question.
It is a problem that is never quite answered correctly. Like in SA we have a black Chartered Accountants Society. Now if I wanted to form a white one, it would be racist, but the black one is not?? Why is that?
21 Apr 2009, 12:29 pm
#120 whatever:
Gee, every time I re-read my note above, I STILL cant see where I call Carlos Spencer ‘my hero’. Oh, thats because I didnt.
But I do recall him putting 50pts on the Boks.
BTW – the ONLY ‘AB’ team that ever landed in SA prior to 1970 were ‘Pakeha’ teams due solely to the fact that SA wouldnt grant anyone else Visas. They were then placed, via the Govt, with a Maximum limit of 3 ‘non-white’ players who would be granted Visas, which is why BG Williams became the 1st ‘coloured’ AB star in SA. Noted AB stars like George Nepia and Waka Nathan never toured the Republic despite being their best players 9and, in Nathans case, the Capt).
So, effectively, the 1st wholly-representative All Black team to land in SA was the post-isolation team in 1992 when there were no restrictions.
But, of course, you wouldnt know that because you appear to know very little.
21 Apr 2009, 13:04 pm
#35 bokfan1:
lol yeah good one Bokfan,maybe its just you.
I work with 3 South Africans and these guys have a wicked sense of humour,I havnt personally met an arse of a South African,i am sure they are out there,as all countries have em,but your 50/50 call sounds a bit like ……maybe you should look in the mirrior to find the problem
21 Apr 2009, 13:43 pm
#85 money_man:
your mum.
Always wanted to say that.
Poppa,dont bother with Whatever,he lives in NZ,spends the NZ dollar and complains about it.He can be a wee sad fella but overall there is nothing wrong with him spite being an *******,but once you get around that hes a ****,so best of luck with him.
21 Apr 2009, 13:45 pm
#100 RugbyRulz:
“One need not have Maori bloodlines to be a Maori by culture.”
And where did you get thet from??
21 Apr 2009, 13:47 pm
#124 Hurricane:
Hmmm sorry i read it wrong.
as you were
21 Apr 2009, 13:50 pm
#46 bokfan1: I’ll name a few current/past NZ Maori players and you say to which race they belong. One race common to all, as you maintain this team is “racially selected”.
Stephen Brett, Carlos Spencer, Liam Messam, Marty Holah, Jonno Gibbes, Christian Cullen, Carl Hayman, Zinzan Brooke, Leon MacDonald, Luke McAllister, Piri Weepu, Daniel Braid, Rico Gear, Caleb Ralph. Alright, enough.
Are they whites? Are they blacks? Are they “colored”? Have they any other common skin color or physical appearance?
Are you sure, you really know what the term “race” means?
21 Apr 2009, 13:59 pm
#83 whatever: “Nah, mate, if a team is selected along ethical lines it is a racist team. Klaar!!”
Wow. Etnicity = race.
Education system really sucks.
21 Apr 2009, 13:59 pm
or rather ‘ethnicity’
21 Apr 2009, 17:41 pm
#126 Nils:
So, Nils, in what part of Latvia were you born ?
21 Apr 2009, 21:02 pm
#11 Puma: I totally agree with you but if we love rugby and want to expand rugby world wide then we must help nations such as the Aussies to compete against the NRL and AFL because those are there professional comps, myself being a Kiwi really want the South Africans to be apart of growth of the game for all our nations but these days there are so many Kiwi’s who live in OZ and there is alot of South Africans in both OZ and NZ so we need the market to benefit all of us, it going to hard at first but once they sort out what rules the game will play by then I know the people will come back.Lets keep the FAITH!!!
21 Apr 2009, 23:59 pm
#121 BlackPanther: No mate, it was Rudolph straueli that put 50 points past the boks – Carlos was incidental.
22 Apr 2009, 00:17 am
Lets establish something correctly here: O Neill’s priorities are (in order):
1) filling the ARU’s coffers
2) filling the ARU’s coffers
3) building union IN Australia
4) the state of union internationally
The state of SA rugby does not even feature on his radar.
Their attempt to start an Aussie domestic competition failed because they did not give it a good go. They need to have another go, but go about it smartly by increasing the level of marketing of their club rugby games to make them better supported and build them into the premier domestic competition. Or else, get a rich financier to market a SA style CC for a few years until it catches on.
But SA would be stupid to drop its rugby nursery and the source of its fans passion. Remember in the Apratheid years, we only had the CC, and this resulted in a huge and old tradition of fierce rivalry, which now stands us in good stead. League is not even an option for us.
Another reason (besides SA fans passion for rugby in general) why it is beneficial for SANZAR to keep SA is that we are the “bad boys”.
Lets face it, the Ausses and Kiwis dislike us more than each other. We are always marketed in their media as the dirty thugs. People love seeing us lose (and we have been doing a good job of this in the past, with the crappy biased ref’s and the ridiculous touring schedules). but we just get on with it, try and win despite the obstacles, and help make the Super competition a spectacle.
Its ironic that the first year the ref’s have been selected on merit, is the first year we have had an honest fighting chance, and is the first year we have started to win. But I see that they are already making noises about this, since we are now winning (its just not in the script!). Expect the past status quo to return next year.
If the aussies were struggling to compete with League when they had an advantage and they were winning, they will fail miserably when their teams are losing more than they are winning.
Lets face it, any competition without us, and including substandard Japanese, Canadian or PI teams will just not cut it as a spectacle.
22 Apr 2009, 02:09 am
#121 BlackPanther:
You’re quick to lable whatever…and equally quick to skirt the questions he raises.
I’ll put it bluntly.
If you’re the non-racial guru you posts would suggest you are (comments like ‘only saffas have a problem with it’ lend credence to this view), please supply concise ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ answers to whatever’s questions.
Is it racist to have a Black Editors Forum in modern day South Africa?
Would it be racist to have a ‘White Lawyers Society’ in modern day South Africa?
Over to you…
22 Apr 2009, 02:12 am
#133 Joe Maher:
That’s ‘label’.
22 Apr 2009, 02:26 am
#121 BlackPanther:
Jeez, the word doos really fits you. I’m not saying that SA’s past policies were right. I accept they were wrong. Now answer my questions if you can.
22 Apr 2009, 02:35 am
#126 Nils:
Mate, they all have at least 1/16th Maori “blood” or ancestry. That is the criteria as far as being selected is concerned. Now that is “race” is it not?
Oh, and I think you knew what I meant in my previous post!!
22 Apr 2009, 02:41 am
#126 Nils:
It is also another reason why the “Moari” team is such a sham.
They need a good fullback so they delve into Christian Cullan’s family tree and somehow find a Maori link within the 1/16 parameter and whamo he is now a Maori (Shades of Luke Watson)
From an outsiders point of view the whole thing does not seem to fit right, but I accept that NZ’s hold the concept close to their hearts.
22 Apr 2009, 07:38 am
Hopefully this will be the last time I will have to POINT you in the right direction as to understanding how one may define themselves as MAORI. I am not going to cut and paste the relevant parts of legislation for you all, you will just have to sit on your AR$es (yes not get off them) and research. It would be all too easy to spoon feed you… Oh I forgot, that is how it is par for the course.
THE MAORI AFFAIRS AMENDMENT ACT 1974
off you toddle… I do not do the legwork for lazy people. You do your own.
Easier yes just google it, I am sure you will find it very easily.
23 Apr 2009, 15:05 pm
#133 Joe Maher:
1stly, check out how many times Whatever namecalls people. I would say MOST of his posts usually end in a ‘doos’ or ‘whacko’ or something else. Personally I stopped namecalling no later than 17/18yrs old.
2ndly – your questions are inherently the answers too. Why would I, a Kiwi, wish to judge what may or may not be right in another persons/country culture ?!
#131 SjamBok:
Oh yes, I keep forgetting. When the Boks lose, its always because of some self-inflicted wound, or quotas, or cheating refs, or travel or….
One thing it is NEVER down to is the opposition being better.
#135 whatever:
Are you able to complete 1 entry without pathetic namecalling ?
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.