Sanzar must call SA’s boycott bluff
12 Feb 2012
South Africa’s five existing Super Rugby franchises have threatened to pull out of the competition in 2013 – if six South African teams are not accommodated. MARK KEOHANE says Sanzar needs to call their bluff.
Once again the tail is wagging the dog. Once again Saru’s leadership is being shown as pathetic and without bite.
Oregan Hoskins, the greatest of disappointments as a leader, needs to stand tall and dismiss the threats of the five South African regions. He won’t and the regions will continue to hold the national governing body to ransom, when it should be the other way around.
Rapport newspaper’s sports editor Rudolph Lake wrote of a meeting between the five regions, a meeting sanctioned by Saru, in which they would look at solutions to the Kings’ entry into Super Rugby in 2013. The same regions, whose leadership had unanimously accepted the Kings’ 2013 entry more than two years ago, now feel the need for crisis meetings, in which the only solution is to accommodate six South African teams.
Now comes the threat that all five South African regions will boycott the tournament if they don’t get their own way. Any proper leadership will tell you they have no option but to play in the tournament. If they don’t they are in breach of existing contracts, they lose their primary source of income and they won’t have a region, let alone players.
It makes for a dramatic headline. It sounds spectacular. But there is no way they should even be in a position to make such a demand.
Sanzar’s board members should be laughing at South African administrators who are nothing but an embarrassment with their insular agendas and motives.
On Sunday the City Press sports section was led by an expose of the Golden Lions Rugby Union’s finances. Leading Media24 investigative journalist Jacques Pauw reveals that the Lions liabilities exceeded assets by R46.6 million in 2007, by R49.6 million in 2008, by R63 million in 2009 and by R73 million in 2010. It shows the Lions owing R38 million to Absa for an overdraft facility, R18 million to businessmen Robert Gumede and Ivor Ichikowitz, R14 million to Saru, R5 million to former coach Dick Muir, R6.8 million to the Leopards Rugby Union and R4.5 million to the Pumas Rugby Union.
Who are the Lions to threaten a boycott of the tournament?
Hoskins confirmed to Lake he had received a letter from the five regions with the threat of the boycott and that he was ‘shocked and disappointed’.
Come on, Regan. Show some leadership. You can’t always be shocked and disappointed. Sending the letter to the other nine provinces for input is also not about leadership, but more denial.
If the five ‘traditional’ provinces don’t want to play in Super Rugby, then kick them out and play the next five. Forget about provincial identities and focus on the players. The players will move to where the playing opportunity is.
The five traditional unions, among them the cash-strapped Lions and Cheetahs, have no position of strength when it comes to Super Rugby participation.
The bluff to force an expansion of Super Rugby from 15 to 16 teams and six South African teams should not be tolerated within Sanzar. If SA does not play ball, as per the agreed Sanzar deal and broadcasting arrangement, then Sanzar and the broadcasters should sue Saru and the respective regions/provinces.
What we are seeing here is how administrators in South African rugby have always conducted their business, be it by bullying or bluffing. The threat to withdraw should be a threat from Sanzar to kick them out.
Hoskins, in his time as Saru president, has never made a hard decision to show he is in charge. He has failed transformation and failed at everything that requires a decision and potential confrontation.
Don’t expect this situation to be any different, although I’d like to think those wizards in New Zealand and Australia have slightly more business acumen and a bigger set of balls to tell South Africa’s traditional five to F-off and stop their shenanigans.
Saru should have dealt with who falls out long before they gave the Kings the OK to play in the 2013 tournament. If it is on historical performance then the Lions must go. And if you look at their finances they should have gone ages ago.
307 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Show All
12 Feb 2012, 13:01 pm
Deon Dragon Fourie’s hand is broken and he could be out for between 4-6 weeks.
That leaves red-faced knock-on Liebenberg and tiny Ntubeni as the Stormers’ hookers.
And Fourie was probably the most adept fetcher in the squad.
I reckon it’s time Grant 10 became an out-and-out Lions and/or Bulls supporter, instead of just a closet one.
12 Feb 2012, 13:02 pm
Meanwhile how’s this for an exciting new look loose trio:
6) Botha
7) Adonga
8) Stander
Hosh ja!
12 Feb 2012, 13:13 pm
The only way out for SARU is to back down on their promise to admit the Kings to Super rugby in 2013. But that would take balls and no-one in SARU is prepared to take the big decisions.
Sanzar are in contract to Newscorp until the end of 2015. SARU then have time to motivate an expanded Super Rugby format from 2016. Only then should the Kings be admitted to the big league.
This decision was taken by rank amateurs who are clueless about running a professional set-up. To expect the existing 5 franchises to come up with a solution just compounds this.
12 Feb 2012, 13:20 pm
Sell the licenses to big business groups like guma and others.I believe the saffa ones ,in any case,expires at the end of this super season.
12 Feb 2012, 13:30 pm
oh my word…we thought steve tew was a dunce for threatening to boycott the RWC 2015 but these okes take the cake.
12 Feb 2012, 13:33 pm
WIll be interesting to see how current SA franchises compete this year.
Will defs add some spice.
12 Feb 2012, 13:36 pm
great article mark keohane.this going to push rugby loser pu ssy(rl) way over the edge
12 Feb 2012, 13:37 pm
SARU should prepare the Kings for entry into 2015 super rugby. Thereby giving them chance in the Currie and Vodacom cups to get up to speed. Are the Kings playing in any competition as a squadn yet?
12 Feb 2012, 13:38 pm
kevin de klerk should sort out his legacy issues before engaging in threats.
12 Feb 2012, 13:40 pm
The Kings are the only team that will definitely have a place next year, but if they boycott they contradict themselves. Holding all the other unions as ransom
Politics … poly = many / ticks =blood sucking animals
12 Feb 2012, 13:45 pm
That’s right Keo, hold no punches. Expose the pricks responsible for this mighty mess.
12 Feb 2012, 13:48 pm
Aich! Anything that Sheeke’ Watson and his laaitie are a part of somehow causes division and unhappiness.
It was like that in the 80′s and it’s like that now.
12 Feb 2012, 13:49 pm
No this article is incorrect surely?
The big five have issued no threat to sanzar but rather threatened saru with a boycott if their places aren’t guaranteed next year.
Fokkol to do with a sixteenth franchise.
What do saru expect? The existing franchises have player and sponsor agreements in place.
So much for the unanimmous agreement on the kings inclusion lmao.
Cheeky is gonna be dissapointed again keohane you lying spin doctoring dwarf.
12 Feb 2012, 13:51 pm
I read in Daily telegraph that an option was being talked about to expand Super rugby.
It involved an argentine side joining the RSA conference, japanese side Australaian and an American side to the NZ conference.
12 Feb 2012, 13:52 pm
Yup, cannot agree more – call their bluff.
12 Feb 2012, 13:54 pm
No this article is incorrect surely?
The big five have issued no threat to sanzar but rather threatened saru with a boycott if theirk places aren’t guaranteed next year.
Fokkol to do with a sixteenth franchise.
What do saru expect? The existing franchises have player and sponsor agreements in place.
So much for the unanimmous agreement on the kings inclusion lmao.
Cheeky is gonna be dissapointed again keohane you lying spin doctoring dwarf.
12 Feb 2012, 13:58 pm
Keo – you are a ******.
You should know as well as anyone else that a loss of one of the 5 major franchises would be devastating to SA Rugby.
Remember a few years ago when the Bulls were on the verge of being relegated and kicked out of the Currie Cup?
Can you imagine the impact this would have had on SA Rugby?
The exact same is true if we lose the Lions or any of the other provinces. For the record. Of all the franchises I despise the Lions the most, but they represent a major rugby development ground and to say that it is negated by the fact that Pretoria is just up the road is idiotic.
The fact is SARU stuffed up and the unions are right to put their foot down in the face of such shocking leadership.
12 Feb 2012, 14:00 pm
For the record … I called you a re.tard, which is a lot better than some of the language you use, yet your language filter marks my comment with ******.
Hypocrite … or wait, just in case it gets *’ed out … hy.po.crite
12 Feb 2012, 14:00 pm
The feline members of the super franchises should thank their counterparts for standing up for them as chances are that either of them will getbthe wooden spoon.
If the agreement between Saru and the franchises ends at end this year, nothing prevents Saru from changing its franchise requirements surely?
So maybe will see Cheating Stormers, Lion Kings or Gauteng Goggos anyway?
Quite like the idea of 1 franchise in Gauteng with home base at Soccer City, even if only to piss the bullies off
12 Feb 2012, 14:04 pm
@davidv-18: Can still see it in the recent comments section. Gnomeo hasn’t figured that one out yet. Maybe one day when Butch’s smirk leaves
12 Feb 2012, 14:05 pm
The Lions shouldn’t be the team losing out. They have just won the Currie Cup and as the Bulls did about 10 yrs ago a few CC titles and they might start improving in Super Rugby. Confidence will be up and better players would want to play there. A combination of the Sharks and Kings would be a better idea as the Sharks are no great shakes at Super Rugby and that is how they started out anyway.
12 Feb 2012, 14:07 pm
@davidv-18: And the point of the “censor” is also what exactly as you can just add the words together or use grammatica….
12 Feb 2012, 14:07 pm
Mark, you might have gotten the wrong end of the stick here pal.
Who’s to say they weren’t threating to pull out if their places are at stake? It could be between the provinces and SARU, not SARU and SANZAR?
Anyway, I think it’s high time we get some back. New Zealand & Australia have benefited from SA’s involvement. We bring in most of the money, yet share it evenly, and have operated with schedules that have counted against SA teams since 96.
If there is to be an expansion, it has to be Port Elizabeth that has the infrastructure, a team already in place & a support base that only looks like growing if they participate in Super Rugby.
The kiwis are quick to say no, but not long ago they were all over the idea of Hawkes Bay receiving a franchise. It’s just when another SA team gets mentioned, that they reject the idea.
And we produce more talented players then Australia, and have much larger playing numbers… We also bring in FAR MORE supporters… why should they have 5 teams also?
Let’s not forget that Australia & New Zealand want to share gate takings (from ticket sales) with the SA franchises also. Trying to rip us off even further.
12 Feb 2012, 14:08 pm
@Captain Jack-21: Correct me if I’m wrong but methinks Sharks have 2nd best overall record in Super rugby for SA teams?
12 Feb 2012, 14:10 pm
@hendrikp-23:
Share gate takings EVENLY that is.
Must be smoking crack, the lot of them.
Imagine having to share the money you get from ticket sales evenly with the Rebels, or Hurricanes, who barely make 4 figures for attendance.
12 Feb 2012, 14:22 pm
Trupisero. They may have the 2nd best record not sure. But haven’t won it and originally the Sharks and EP shared the franchise. Also pooling their resources would make for a strongr team. The Sharks originally being bigger than EP used this strength to gt most of the games played in Durban. What should happen is that half the games get played in each city and a coach with no loyalty to either should be got and it could work
12 Feb 2012, 14:24 pm
let the kings play all 5 S15 teams, and the team that loses drops away. I can tell you, the kings won’t beat anyone.
12 Feb 2012, 14:26 pm
get your head out of these 5 rugby franchises arses hoskins!rugby in south africa doesn’t belong to these people.stand up and be counted and just replace the five with another set.
12 Feb 2012, 14:29 pm
Mark Keohane’s bias is showing and this article is an emotional outburst to express his anti-Lions feelings. Not a very well thought through bit of gutter journalism with side swipes everywhere but no real substance.
South Africa’s five existing Super Rugby franchises have threatened to pull out of the competition in 2013 – if six South African teams are not accommodated. MARK KEOHANE writes Sanzar needs to call their bluff.
Once again the tail is wagging the dog. Once again SARU’s leadership is being shown as pathetic and without bite.
Oregan Hoskins, the greatest of disappointments as a leader, needs to stand tall and dismiss the threats of the five South African regions. He won’t and the regions will continue to hold the national governing body to ransom, when it should be the other way around.
The Rapport Newspaper’s sports editor Rudolf Lake wrote of a meeting between the five regions, a meeting sanctioned by SARU, in which they would look at solutions to the Kings’ entry into Super Rugby in 2013. The same regions, whose leadership had unanimously accepted the Kings’ 2013 entry more than two years, now feel the need for crisis meetings, in which the only solution is to accommodate six South African teams.
What were the conditions to their acceptance? I am certain that none of them would have accepted suicide at an option, which is what SARU expects – “which one of you five will fall on your sword to make space for a politically motivated inferior region to join Super Rugby?”
Now comes the threat that all five South African regions will boycott the tournament if they don’t get their own way. Any proper leadership will tell you they have no option but to play in the tournament.
Actually they have. Each of these franchises are independent legal entities, and as their franchise agreement apparently expires at the end of 2012 they can set up their own professional body to run their competitions and thereby marginalise SARU. In addition, with 60% of SANZAR media money coming from SA they would have a fair bit of clout.
If they don’t they are in breach of existing contracts, they lose their primary source of income and they won’t have a region, let alone players.
With the franchise agreements expiring soon they probably won’t be in breach of contract and since they have ALL SA’s top domestic rugby players contracted to them they are in a very powerful position to “go it alone” outside of SARU.
It makes for a dramatic headline. It sounds spectacular, but there is no way they should even be in a position to make such a demand.
SANZAR’s board members should be laughing at South African administrators who are nothing but an embarrassment with their insular agendas and motives.
A bit of sense if you talk about Cheeky Watson and the SARU administrators.
The City Press’s sports section is led by an expose of the Lions Rugby Union finances. Leading Media24 investigative journalist Jacques Pauw reveals that the Lions liabilities exceeded assets by R46.6 million in 2007, by R49.6 million in 2008, by R63 million in 2009 and by R73million in 2010. It shows the Lions owing R38million to ABSA for an overdraft facility, R18million to businessmen Robert Gumede and Ivor Ichikowitz, R14million to SARU, R5million to former coach **** Muir, R6.8million to Leopards Rugby Union and R4.5million to the Pumas Rugby Union.
This is old news and have been laid to rest by the Lions and their investors and their sponsors. While nobody argues that the Lions have debts the position is now said to be under control. And is Mark Keohane so naive to think that the other unions and franchises don’t have debts? Does he really think the other unions and franchises are squeaky clean?
Who are the Lions to threaten a boycott of the tournament?
It is not only the Lions that are threatening a boycott. It is all five franchises. You know, the guys who actually bring in most of the money into SARU and SANZAR? The guys who have contracted most of SA’s top rugby players?
Hoskins confirmed to Lake he had received a letter from the five regions with the threat of the boycott and that he was ‘shocked and disappointed’.
Come on Regan. Show some leadership. You can’t always be shocked and disappointed. Sending the letter to the other nine provinces for input is also not about leadership, but more denial.
If the five ‘traditional’ provinces don’t want to play in Super Rugby, then kick them out and play the next five. Forget about provincial identities and focus on the players. The players will move to where the playing opportunity is.
With all the top players contracted to the five franchises where are you going to get players? And Keohane seem to forget that it is only the three Kings unions that aren’t tied into the franchises. So who will be the next five?
The five traditional unions, among them the cash-strapped Lions and Cheetahs, have no position of strength when it comes to Super Rugby participation.
Again, they are actually in a very strong position. They can actually step out of SARU and go it alone. They have the players, they bring in the money (and money will go where the demand is), they have the companies and organisations set up.
The bluff to force an expansion of Super 15 to 16 teams and six South African teams should not be tolerated within SANZAR. If SA does not play ball, as per the agreed SANZAR deal and broadcasting arrangement, then SANZAR and the broadcasters should sue SARU and the respective regions/provinces.
It’s about not including the Kings at the expense of an existing, stronger franchise. SARU administrators are the ones who didn’t do their homework before promising the Kings a spot. At last something to agree with! SANZAR should tell SARU that they should sort themselves out and not make promises that they cannot keep!
What we are seeing here is how administrators in South African rugby have always conducted their business, be it by bullying or bluffing. The threat to withdraw should be a threat from SANZAR to kick them out.
The fact is that SANZAR wouldn’t want to kick the SA franchises out but I’m sure they would like to get rid of the incompetent SARU administrators. Without the SA money there will be no SANZAR and without the Big Five there will be a lot less media money.
Hoskins, in his time as SARU president, has never made a hard decision to show he is in charge. He has failed transformation and failed at everything that requires a decision and potential confrontation.
Don’t expect this situation to be any different, although I’d like to think those wizards in New Zealand and Australia have slightly more business acumen and a bigger set of balls to tell South Africa’s traditional five to F-off and stop their shenanigans.
With the Kiwi franchises virtually all bankrupt and 60% of SANZAR media income coming from SA they aren’t really in a position to tell anyone to f-off. However SARU’s incompetence and political agendas must be wearing their them down so that they will feel it worth while to explore Japanese and American money for their future. Maybe it is time for the SA unions and franchises to stage a palace revolution in SARU.
The “big five’s shenanigans” comes from SARU’s inability to stand up to Cheeky Watson and his political cronies
SARU should have dealt with who falls out long before they gave the Kings the okay to play in the 2013 tournament.
The only bit of real sense in this diatribe.
If it is on historical performance then the Lions must go. And if you look at their finances they should have gone ages ago.
As opposed to the Kings? Who had to be bailed out, with their respective unions, by SARU? Who have never been a power in SA rugby? Who have done nothing for rugby development in their region in years except whinge about not being in Super Rugby while unions with less have done more?
12 Feb 2012, 14:33 pm
the kings will get a franchise license next year ,so now we only need four more.gumede might be interested in a license.
12 Feb 2012, 14:36 pm
@Baylion-29: YAWWWWWWWWWWWN.if you are not happy with the article then f-off as per keo.
12 Feb 2012, 14:39 pm
@rangerman-13:
That was what I read in the Five Unions’ joint statement,
To me Keo’s posting is clearly to hand a helping hand to SARU to create some uncertainty about the situation by shifting ‘the ownership’ of SARU drive for Sixth team over to the Five Unions, possibly someone in SARU is looking for some face saving?
12 Feb 2012, 14:40 pm
Good Work Babylion. More sense than keo sensationalism
12 Feb 2012, 14:49 pm
Does anyone know what time the 7′s boks are playing against nz?
12 Feb 2012, 14:50 pm
Mark’s companu HSM is Luke’s agent.
Luke is the captain of the Kings.
Luke’s Dad is the head honcho there.
Of course there will be a barrage of articles that defend the Kings right at the expense of one of the other established unions.
But sadly they lose all credibility as a result of the Luke Watson connection.
12 Feb 2012, 14:54 pm
@Baylion-29:
Read half way and it became clear you are a bit naive.
The franchises cannot ‘go at it on their own’, SupeRugby is owned by SANZAR and in SA terms, SA Rugby.
If they pull out, where will they go to? Who will they play?
Any competition has to be sanctioned by the IRB – IRB will only sanction competitions controlled by its member unions (in this case SA Rugby) – if not, they would become a rebel league who will not be allowed to participate in any IRB sanctioned competitions which includes SupeRugby (and our Currie Cup for that matter).
In essence, they will not be allowed to play in SupeRugby, Heineken Cup or even the Currie Cup (or any competition you can basically think of right now).
They will have to form their own controlling body (outside of SA Rugby and the IRB), sell it to sponsors and broadcaster, and start their own international body.
Also keep in mind, any player associated with such a rebel league will also be banned from playing in any IRB sanctioned competition in the world, including the Rugby World Cup.
So two things; the existing franchises/unions do not hold the aces, SA Rugby does. No-one would be interested in seeing 5 rebel SA franchises play among themselves so forget sponsors and broadcast deals.
Players will move to where they get paid, and get exposure – a rebel league offers them none of that.
And as for this united front of all the big 5 boys sticking together? It will only last until one of them gets the boot – after that, the remaining 4 will say; “Sorry but you are on your own, we will not jeopardise our inclusion”
The only reason they are currently seen as a united front is because they are not too sure who is going to be kicked out.
12 Feb 2012, 14:58 pm
this article is disgusting and reflective of the inbred mentality of the journos here. Why support The Kings? A woefully inadequate piece of filth that is only backed because of, you guessed it, more bad politics. The Kings have to date beaten NOBODY not even the two sides you target here. The Lions and the Cheetahs DESERVE to be there. SARU, another bunch of inbred gutter rats, made big talk and thought the Unions will fall in line and merge to accomodate that filth. Sober up, and sober quickly. How you idiots can get employed is beyond me. Such idiocy should never be allowed a voice anywhere.
12 Feb 2012, 15:01 pm
@PissAnt-36: Yip expect to see kickbacks and backroom deals in the next few weeks – the 5 unions with access to the biggest pockets will survive. Bulls, Sharks and Stormers can buy their participation licenses. Lions and FS to fight it out. Lions have the advantage of having a bigger equity partner than the FS.
12 Feb 2012, 15:02 pm
@RL-38:
One thing is for sure, things are about to get very ugly.
12 Feb 2012, 15:03 pm
I am out, later.
12 Feb 2012, 15:06 pm
very good post there pissant…ties in with keo’s opinion..however SARU dug this hole,put the franchises in there and now instead of providing them with the tools to help them get out,they dump some more dirt in there and tell the big 5 “get yourselves outta that place”.poor form SARU
12 Feb 2012, 15:07 pm
@Baylion-29:
It would be very dangerous move to consider in South African reality from the personal security aspect
Remember Skinstaad in 2003? Mitchell in 2010?
That in essence the ‘strength’ of the ancyl drive via SARU, now, it all depends on how the Networks -who sponsor the Super Rugby – will react, there are teams in the competition who are a liability financially but are viable rugby wise such as the Landers, Cheetahs and lately the Lions, the competition’s financial base doesn’t need to be further diluted
12 Feb 2012, 15:14 pm
@Alucard-37:
It’s a simple drive to destabilise the rugby in SA, SARU have no choice in the matterbut to play ball with it
It was expected already after the 1998 trial so SA rugby enjoyed 14 years of reprive.
Seemed like SANZAR will have no choice but to disband eventually
12 Feb 2012, 15:20 pm
Post 42 could have been written by a person domiciled in an asylum for the mentally challenged.
12 Feb 2012, 15:29 pm
To me it seems a scorpion is loose. The poison is in the tial
The Bulls franchise: Bluebulls and Falcons
The Lions franchise: Lions, Leopards and Pumas
The Stormer franchise:WP and Lions
Cheetah franchise: Cheetahs, Griquas and Griffons
The Sharks franhise: Sharks
against
Kings: EP, Border and Eagles
My calculation comes to 11 teams in the tail
12 Feb 2012, 15:31 pm
@dWeePer-45: This post makes no sense
12 Feb 2012, 15:34 pm
@trupisero-24:
Lions won a Super 10 title.
You must feel like a real moron being educated by a Bulls fan……
shampies!!!
12 Feb 2012, 15:35 pm
@clm-28:
Rugby does belong to the people, as in the people that support it above political gain.
12 Feb 2012, 15:41 pm
@Captain Jack-26:
The Sharks do have the 2nd best record but lets follow your logic a little
a) Sure the Sharks were originally grouped with EP -> But then again the Lions have been grouped with both the Cheetahs and the Bulls.
You have not made one reason why the Sharks should lose out (apart from the fact you have an axe to grind)
b) All the forced combos have proven is they don’t work.
I am OK with the
* bottom side gets relegated each year AND
* In meantime we negotiate to be increased to 6 sides after 2015
A threat to boycott is embarrassing to us. We agreed to the dumb conference system.
I am amazed that all 5 teams put them name to such a letter. I would like to see such a letter
What does confuse me is that all unions unanimously approved the addition of the Kings to Superrugby? Why would they do that given that being out would condemn the relegated side to trouble?
Can we see
a) The letter?
b) The unanimous motion that the unions agreed to (including any pre-conditions)
12 Feb 2012, 15:42 pm
49
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.