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, 18:50 pm
The thread below this one clarifies a lot.
The idea of a boycott is emphatically denied. Apparently what they did say was that expansion was the only option
So Keo went all emotional on this one.
I am at a loss why the franchises would support one of them going down?
I quote
‘After lengthy discussions between the franchises, we unanimously decided that it is imperative:
* That such inclusion will benefit South African rugby in general;
* That none of the existing franchises shall be prejudiced by such inclusion in any way whatsoever;
* That none of the existing franchises shall be eliminated from the tournament in 2013 or at any stage thereafter as a result of the inclusion of the Kings;
* That Saru as custodian of the South African leg of the tournament will ensure that the Kings are included without prejudice to any of the existing franchises.
‘The existing franchises will endeavour to provide all necessary assistance and support to Saru in its negotiations with Sanzar to ensure the inclusion of six South African franchises in 2013 onwards.’
12 Feb 2012, 18:50 pm
Sort after.
What a quirp.
Numbnuts.
12 Feb 2012, 18:51 pm
@Captain Jack-198:
No Jack, there was no plan. SA Rugby does not believe in planning.
12 Feb 2012, 18:55 pm
@PissAnt-197: no,what i think he is saying is that,he (andI), as a bonafide ticket and jersey buying,dstv paying south african rugby supporter should have a more significant say in what happens in SA rugby as a defacto shareholder.
regrettably we do live in a capatalistic world and until we stop using money to pay bills nothing will change that.
12 Feb 2012, 18:55 pm
Get of the ox-wagon Tacitus and become part of the real South Africa.Your boertjie mentality will get you nowhere buddy.
12 Feb 2012, 18:56 pm
@PissAnt-197:
Elitist yes. Racist no.
Nothing wrong with being elitist.
Being a rugby supporter doesn’t come freely to me. I have to pay a DSTV subscription of R650 per month. I have to pay for attending matches – much more than it costs a soccer supporter – and my supporter’s kit costs me a pretty penny each year.
If my son wants to participate in rugby one day, his kit will cost a lot of money, as will the medical bills of the inevitable injuries he will suffer, as well as the proper nutrition and supplements he will need to endure the rigours of a physical rugby match.
School tours will cost thousands of bucks as will fund raising events for the school lapa next to the rugby field, or the extra coach the school wants to employ to make the team more competitive.
Point is, blacks will soon be the richest segment of SA society, and if they are willing to pay for their kids to participate in a sport that’s their passion, then great.
And if the government wishes to spend taxpayer’s money on supplying all these barefoot guys in the hills with everything my kid gets at my own expense, then fair enough. It’s better than wasting it on submarines and space age jet fighters we don’t have pilots of fuel for.
But the fact remains, rugby is expense to participate in and to support. That’s reality. Deal with it.
So if a franchise wants to be succssful, it nees afluent supporters, not just poor guys who carry them in their hearts. That’s half of PE’s problem. It’s a poor, working class town. And half the guys that attend Kings games probably get discounted or free entry just to fill the stadium.
12 Feb 2012, 18:58 pm
Still awaiting a rugby-related comment from the clown.
12 Feb 2012, 19:00 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther-202:
Second time in the same thread 8)
It’s an alter of truth thing.
12 Feb 2012, 19:03 pm
@Brigadier Van Zyl-187:
In the NZ system, the franchises declare a squad of, I think it’s 26 players, and the NZRU has the right to select the other four from different provinces who are not included in a declared S15 squad, if they believe that a squad needs strengthening in certain areas or there’s a player they’d like to see more of. This prevents a franchise from sitting with a wealth of players in one position which another franchise could use. The player has the right to refuse or move back to his contracting union after the S15.
This is done for the benefit of NZ rugby.
12 Feb 2012, 19:03 pm
Sout Africa will only be for the better when the likes of Tacitus die off…fact.
12 Feb 2012, 19:05 pm
@David-209:
And in Aus? France? England? If the Force spend $4m to buy Mat Gitaeu, who is he contracted to?
12 Feb 2012, 19:06 pm
@Tacitus-206:
Pleae explain who buys all those season tickets at Ellis Park?
12 Feb 2012, 19:07 pm
Jockie the thing with comfortably numbnuts is that he is to stupid to quit whilst he is behind.
As for halfblacksaregods he is about to tell us that super rugby licences are owned by Saru again.
In case we missed him stating the obvious on the previous five occasions.
Poor poodlenaaier.
12 Feb 2012, 19:07 pm
@David-212:
Hehe. I’m not a Lions supporter, so I don’t have to answer that!
12 Feb 2012, 19:10 pm
@Dawn-200:
One day Dawn, one day they shall win another game!
(See when they due to play Italy)
12 Feb 2012, 19:10 pm
@Brigadier Van Zyl-204:
Brig, it is your right to support any team you want, but if you want to support a team that did not only failed to get the results on the field in Super Rugby but also failed dismally as an organisation and company financially then you have little right to demand their continued existence in a professional league or competition like Super Rugby.
@Tacitus-206:
And my above comment basically applies to your post too. The Lions (and lesser extent Cheetahs since their split as the Cats) were gifted Super Rugby entrenchment and failed to deliver.
Arguing for their continued participation is supporting mediocrity and amateurism in rugby in this country of the highest order.
12 Feb 2012, 19:10 pm
@Tacitus-211:
England and France are different, they don’t have a regional competition, only clubs. I believe that Australia also centrally contracts and the Franchise provides the top up. I could be wrong, though.
12 Feb 2012, 19:12 pm
@PissAnt-216:
So what is your argument? That the Kings should be given a shot, and if they don’t perform, be relegated again? Or will different rules apply to them?
12 Feb 2012, 19:14 pm
It seems the clown is infatuated with allblacksaregods.still awaiting a rugby-related comment from you clown.
12 Feb 2012, 19:15 pm
@PissAnt-216:
Also, why the Kings, and not the Griquas, who are the next best team after the big 5? Or Boland, who actually have more quality clubs than the Eastern Cape in its entirety?
On what basis do the Kings deserve it above all the teams that rank above them in the Currie Cup?
12 Feb 2012, 19:15 pm
@PissAnt-174: mmm. Don’t get all reasonable on me
This is not the place for it.
In principal, what you says makes sense. However to spring this on a Union when the season has basically already started is highly irresponsible.
I just can’t get behind it.
By all means include the Kings, but not at someone’s expense on such short notice.
If there was to be a relegation system this should have been planned for over the past 2 or 3 years to give the Unions an adequate chance at making preperations.
12 Feb 2012, 19:16 pm
@David-209: I’m not sure I care for that system, proper pro run sporting entities would not want to get involved in some ad-hoc player share jumble sale.
That is not to say that they are opposed to loaning players out….as does happen as well.
12 Feb 2012, 19:18 pm
*principle. Seems it’s infectious.
12 Feb 2012, 19:18 pm
PA isn’t it more amateurish to give the Kings a go when they clearly are not better than the current sa s15 teams. As clearly seen in their performances in the cc 2nd div.
12 Feb 2012, 19:18 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther-213:
It’s really quite fun how Elliott thinks he’s being clever, but because he has the intelligence of an ant, you only need to sit back and watch him catch himself out.
12 Feb 2012, 19:19 pm
@PissAnt-216:
excuse me, but all the ep unions that would form the kings are also completely incompetent and have at one or other time in the past few seasons been bankrupt bailed out etc,,,,,are they not?
do not use the lions financial woes as reason to include the kings, they have zilch moral ground to build a case financially.
12 Feb 2012, 19:21 pm
@Brigadier Van Zyl-222:
I reckon that NZs performance over the years at S15 and Test level proves how successful the system is compared to ours.
12 Feb 2012, 19:25 pm
@Brigadier Van Zyl-226:
Why is a combination of the Bulls and Lions in a franchise less acceptable than the Bulls or Lions partnering with their existing franchise partners?
12 Feb 2012, 19:26 pm
@PissAnt-216: some will say that it is because of the Cats union that the Lions and FS are in the position they are in – ruined. They were doing just fine on their own until SARU stuffed up just because their entitled little Stellenbosch darlings got relegated and had to miss out a year of superrugby.
The SARU pricks created the unworkable franchises and the same SARU pricks allowed the corrupt EC to extract money from the guppies denying their own clubs superrugby involvement.
To me the solution is easy, let the top 5 Currie cup teams qualify for superrugby.
12 Feb 2012, 19:28 pm
Is that all you can muster?
Still not a counter to Americanism.
Is it too a situation akin to your daddy ain’t(another Americanism) your daddy.
Does that make it a case of like father like son?
Enjoy.
Even a wintry sun is more pleasurable than your stale breath.
12 Feb 2012, 19:28 pm
@allblacksaregods-210:
Hey, I’d recognise that kind of racist hate talk anywhere.
It is Capo.
12 Feb 2012, 19:29 pm
@Tacitus-218: @Tacitus-220:
Answer to that is simple, regional franchises.
The reason (and theory) for implementing a regional franchise structure instead of a union based structure is great – but typically SA Rugby they fluffed this up as-well.
A union based structure is limited – any union can only contract so many players – and how do we decide who the best 5 unions are? The Currie Cup?
A union for example only has a direct base of about 500 players (as an example), franchise system gives a franchise access to the cream of double, if not triple that.
I have maintained for a long time now, SA given simply its resources in numbers should dominate world rugby, yet we insist on limiting ourselves thanks to stupid amateurism and ego.
12 Feb 2012, 19:31 pm
@stormersboy-221:
It is a royal mess yes, and I agree, totally unfair to all involved. But we have also now faced this situation since 2006.
In the end I am blaming SA Rugby, not the unions – they are all victims of a dickless organisation.
12 Feb 2012, 19:34 pm
@PissAnt-232:
I think you underestimate the traditional support that is tied directly to the big 5 unions in SA. this support is not so easily transferrable to a Central Stags or Eastern Antelope franchise as you seem to believe.
If the holistic picture is taken into account, the current 5 franchises make sense for many reasons beyond just where they end up on the Currie Cup log.
SA provinces have Man U like support in terms of its passion and the fervour it generates. In many cases, it exceeds the support for the national team.
It makes sense to build on these existing strengths, rather than trying to break it down to reshape the SA Rugby landscape for some intangible theoretical benefit.
12 Feb 2012, 19:36 pm
@RL-229:
Rubbish, it was Louis Luyt who created the Cats under the illusion that the combination would make it the strongest SA Franchise. He was right for a while.
12 Feb 2012, 19:36 pm
Indeed.
Out on parole with another stolen phone.
Will the rozzers catch him before his airtime runs out.
And meanwhile comfortably dumb is wondering who his daddy is.
Hardly suprising.
Who could blame the poor goat for farking off sharpish when he saw that he’d spawned the duiwel.
12 Feb 2012, 19:36 pm
Say what you will about Hoskins, he is by far a better president than that clown Van Rooyen! What a disaster that was!
12 Feb 2012, 19:39 pm
@Captain Jack-224:
Take Super Rugby away from any current franchise (read Big 5) and they will compete in the CC 1st division within 12 months.
@Brigadier Van Zyl-226:
Same as above, apples and pears. Kings (whole Eastern Cape) never had a franchise of their own like the Lions or Cheetahs, so how can you say they will fail?
They have failed not being part of the SR gravy train (sitting ugly in CC 1st division), by I will bet my house so will every single union if their franchise license had to be revoked.
@RL-229:
The most success they achieve in Super Rugby was as the Cats – but in essence I agree, this nightmare has been created by SARU’s incompetence.
12 Feb 2012, 19:39 pm
@David-235@David-235: rubbish! He was THE SARU prick.
12 Feb 2012, 19:40 pm
@Jeez-237:
Not just a clown, but also a crook.
12 Feb 2012, 19:42 pm
@RL-239:
Also president of the Lions, so don’t blame it on Stellenbosch and WP.
12 Feb 2012, 19:44 pm
@Tacitus-234:
I have personally sat in an empty Loftus and Ellis Park when their teams were utter *****, which suggests to me people support winning teams, nothing more.
And the ‘theory’ or argument for a proper regional franchise system far outweighs that of a limited union based approach – but then again that means adopting a professional rugby model instead of the current amateur rubbish.
12 Feb 2012, 19:49 pm
@David-241:
NOOOOOOOOO
12 Feb 2012, 19:51 pm
@PissAnt-242:
You’re flogging a dead horse. Tacitus idea of a regional franchise is the Boks with 22 Bulls in the team.
12 Feb 2012, 19:54 pm
@RL-243:
YESSSSSSSSSS
Seriously, Luyt chose the Cats merger in the belief that they’d be the strongest SA franchise.
12 Feb 2012, 19:56 pm
in a world where efficiency, profitability and sustainability are supposedly worshipped one wonders how the Lions franchise (not the GLRU) has managed to get its licence renewed when it owes the licence owner – SARU – R18 million.
A number of bloggers here like to go on about BEE, entitlement & tenders, it seems like Gumede & the Lions would’ve been a match made in heaven when it comes to the little issue of competence.
Does anyone know how much Jake White Winning Ways was paid for ‘consulting’ for the GLRU?
12 Feb 2012, 19:58 pm
Nog altyd?
12 Feb 2012, 19:58 pm
@David-244: hahahahaha
12 Feb 2012, 19:59 pm
Look, lets never lose sight of the fact that SA rugby comes first, before the provinces.
12 Feb 2012, 20:00 pm
@Transformation-246:
No idea, but I believe he insisted on cold hard cash since he isn’t mentioned as someone being owed money!
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.