Sanzar stands firm on Super Rugby format
14 Feb 2012
Sanzar CEO Greg Peters dealt South Africa’s hope of gaining an additional Super Rugby franchise a hammer blow by insisting the format will not change until 2015.
In January the South African Rugby Union (Saru) committed to the Kings’ Super Rugby inclusion in 2013 but conceded that they did not know how they would be accommodated. They then rejected a relegation match as an option of trimming a franchise and also said a merger between two franchises was not an option.
Weekend reports indicated that the South African franchises had resolved to boycott the tournament in 2013 if they were not awarded another franchise. Saru quickly moved to dismiss those reports as false but did issue an ultimatum to their Sanzar partners saying: ‘… the franchises have made it plain that the only option to them is the expansion of Super Rugby. They also pledged their support for the Kings’ inclusion in 2013 as well as for Saru’s efforts to persuade Sanzar to include a sixth South African franchise.’
A letter from the five franchises to Saru president Oregan Hoskins stated:
* 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.
However, Peters insisted that no such concession can be made in light of the current tournament model being sold to broadcast and commercial partners until 2015 and the conference system being unable to function with an uneven number of teams.
‘The reality is that expansion of Super Rugby is not possible at this stage,’ Peters told keo.co.za. ‘Before their inclusion, the Kings’ aspirations were discussed in detail. How they are accommodated is a domestic issue for South Africa. And while we are always open to dialogue on this issue, it is incumbent upon them to make the necessary adjustments to facilitate the Kings’ inclusion.’
Peters added that they had explored a wide range of format options prior to settling on the current model and that there simply was no viable alternative to it at present. He added that New Zealand and Australia, the latter recording a 41% increase in television viewership in 2011, were opposed to any change in the format.
‘The Reds won the competition last year and I know other Australian franchises feel confident they can replicate that success, so it is understandable that there would be resistance to this idea from them. New Zealand are pleased with the model. They are realistic about the number of franchises they can field before the quality of those franchises is compromised,’ he said.
‘Also, we’re in year two of Super Rugby. The tournament in this guise is still in its infancy. It is nonsensical on a number of levels to alter its form.’
A final decision on the matter is expected on 31 March once all discussions have concluded.
By Ryan Vrede
Read Mark Keohane’s view on this issue here
Follow Ryan on Twitter
Follow SA Rugby magazine on Twitter
370 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 » Show All
14 Feb 2012, 11:57 am
@Transformation-74: Skop is a Jehovah’s Witness:-)
14 Feb 2012, 12:00 pm
@PissAnt-98: all of what you said is fine as long as cheeky watson and his perceived ANC mates stay out of rugby, plus the blue bulls have won 3 super rugby titles while hoskins was at the helm, so who is complaining?
also, hoskins has just been elected into the IRB big league
14 Feb 2012, 12:00 pm
@Transformation-102:
14 Feb 2012, 12:01 pm
Believe a bit of hatchet job is being performed on the Super Rugby teams. SARU Without the Boks and Super Rugby is a non entity.
SARU as custodians of the SA game should of thought of this before confirming the Spears’ super rugby participation….. Jeepers what are those guys paid to do if it’s not to sort these things out.
I feel particularly sorry for the Lions. There is no coincidence in the pressure Creditors are putting on them ( in particular the neg publicity) and the emergence of the Spears.
I in particle
14 Feb 2012, 12:02 pm
@Transformation-102:
“perceived ANC mates”
hahhaha
like it’s a perception.
I see what you did there.
You are like PE’s answer to Chris Rock.
14 Feb 2012, 12:03 pm
@SHARKattack-101: I think they put him in the Jehovah’s Witness Protection Programme for his own good.
14 Feb 2012, 12:06 pm
The biggest mistake anyone could make is to think that the Watson cartell is in this for altruistic reasons.
14 Feb 2012, 12:07 pm
The SA teams should boycott Super Rugby. SARU is patently spineless and the Aussies (in particular) and the Kiwis need us more than we need them. In relative terms our domestic rugby is a much stronger brand than theirs and we can fall back on it while this mess is sorted.
Keo says we should call the Super Rugby teams bluff. I say they should call SARU and SANZAR’s bluff
14 Feb 2012, 12:14 pm
I do hope the existing SA Big 5 boycott the Super Comp in 2013.
Newscorp, and Sanzar will drag their sorry sad arses through every Court from the Veld to the Sea. Sucking millions and millions out of their coffers.
And new Teams will emerge stacked with SA talent. Boland, Griqualand West, EP, Border.
This just keeps getting better and better.
Go on Bullies, Lions, Cheats, Brokebacks and Guppies…………………………………………….make my day.
8)
14 Feb 2012, 12:17 pm
It does not take an Einstein to work out why the 16 team format was rejected. The only thing that makes sense with the conference system is the guaranteed 8 home matches for each team. So did Hoskins really think that half the teams were going to settle for 7 home matches, sacrifice a home match just to accommodate his political promise?
What a doff kop he is and Jurie Roux went with this plan. No s.crew those Kings … turns out those pricks rejected the notion of playing a promotion relegation match against the last placed SA team – I wonder why.
What gives them the right to try and take from the haves for their have-nots to have. Crazy stuff I tell you, just crazy.
14 Feb 2012, 12:21 pm
@Train-108:
“and the Kiwis need us more than we need them”.
Lets wait and see who needs who come the Boycott shall we. A boycott would be devesting financially for all 5 existing SA franchises.
14 Feb 2012, 12:22 pm
So Cane, once they dragged their sorry arses through the courts what will they have to show for it? Even if they take everything they’ve got they won’t recoup their losses.
Notwithstanding this point I do believe this announcement and it’s implications have a material impact on their ongoing business prospects
14 Feb 2012, 12:26 pm
So dragging their sorry asses through court may not be so straightforward
14 Feb 2012, 12:26 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther-105: get it straight G, in 2005 when the Presidents Council resolved that the South Eastern Cape have to be represented in Super Rugby Cheeky Watson was nowhere near the management of EP Rugby, he wasn’t even a non-executive member. i find it humourous every time this thing is linked to Cheeky & the ANC as if it was his brainchild.
14 Feb 2012, 12:30 pm
Cane
SA has a sustainable domestic competition. The Aussies don’t and the NPC as a brand is weaker than the Currie Cup.
Ultimately however this is something for SARU to sort out as they created this mess but SANZAR should realise on which side their bread is buttered
14 Feb 2012, 12:33 pm
@Transformation-114: Fukkensemantics, bro. Either this is a politically meddled decision or it is not.
And if it is (which it most certainly is), then it is no doubt under ANC-led instructions.
And Cheeky has been hand om die blaas with his strugglebuds ever since he started eyeing this vacant kingdom.
You can’t bullshit a bullshitter.
14 Feb 2012, 12:33 pm
The boycott idea is stupid, and was in fact never on the table.
The 5 SA franchises never threatened SANZAR. They simply told SARU to back off.
14 Feb 2012, 12:36 pm
@PissAnt-103: i can’t wait ’til we get back to headlines like this
Spears claim R14.9m from Saru
18 Sep 2006
Spears CEO Tony McKeever has slammed Saru’s move to buy controlling shares in the franchise, arguing they are owed R14.9 million by the national body.
In a strongly worded statement McKeever explained what was going on behind the scenes to ensure that the Lions would take part in next year’s Vodacom Super 14.
“The latest SA Rugby wrecking ball tactics are being driven by Koos Basson and Basil Haddad (acting managing director and CFO and past CEO of Border and previous MD of the Despatch newspaper), who tabled this proposal to the three presidents of Border, Eastern Province and SWD, the day before the Springbok Wallaby Test at Ellis Park and are using their ‘inside’ mole and contact of acting CEO of Border, Syd Loubser, to be their foot soldier and Judas within Border and the Spears,” said McKeever.
“This is intended to derail the Spears High Court hearing for a Rule 49-11 on 26 September for the enforcement of 4 August order and compensation for the substitution of 14 games from the 2006 Absa Currie Cup. This is R7.5 million, plus the R6.4 million still owed by SA Rugby till December 2006 is R14.9 million.
“[These are] reasons why SA Rugby are scrambling. It also screams that SA Rugby have no confidence in their court application on the 26 September.”
14 Feb 2012, 12:38 pm
@>^..^< katman-116:
Speaking of fingers in pies, I reckon Keo is up to his neck in some serious conflicts of interest with the whole Kings story.
He and his cronies are honing in on the most vulnerable of the Big 5 – the Lions – like a pack of hyenas targeting an injured buffalo, but if the Lions weren’t going through financial troubles he would have picked whichever other franchise he perceived as most vulnerable.
Anything to get his pal Cheeky and his political buddies a share of the rugby pie.
14 Feb 2012, 12:38 pm
@>^..^< katman-116: speculate all you want, WHERE was cheeky watson in 2005 when the Presidents Council made the resolution and mandated SARU to form the SPEARS franchise?
where was he?
14 Feb 2012, 12:40 pm
@Transformation-120:
Busy getting fat on BEE deals in other spheres of society. He has now just moved his greedy sights on to target the rugby pie.
14 Feb 2012, 12:40 pm
Maybe this will force the entire structure to become professional.
Too many blazers, not enough professionals.
We need to be realistic. Super Rugby is the top competition. Therefore lets just be frikken honest with ourselves and accept that. Stuffing S15 and Currie Cup with 10 Tests in one “season” is way too much rugby for the players and also the fans.
Its not a “season” its a year.
Check the Superbowl. The two finalists played 19 games the entire season. 19 games!!! But please see the viewing figures. Fans are so hungry for the season that they lap up each and every minute of it, the gate takings are almost guaranteed to be full and TV viewership is immense.
But rugby, bless its amateur socks, just thinks more equals better. Now our teams play what, 45 games a season – almost every weekend. Sometimes I couldn’t be bothered to watch a minute of S15, when in the past (like the S12 days) a 5-game Saturday was a special day.
My solution is simple. The tournament of the future (we’re stuffed with this rubbish till 2015) is one with 6 SA franchises. CT, PE, Durbs, Bloem, JHB and PTA each get a team. They play at one stadium each – no more of this trekking to outlying areas. That’s for amateurs.
After that we have international season and then a break from the end of 4N till the start of the Super Tournament. This way we could also get an international season by playing from late Feb to August.
Fans are not as hungry for rugby as they used to be. Players are playing for an enormously long season so they don’t commit as heavily as they used to. Thus the rugby is a little more like touch rugby.
Make us hungry again. The last great rugby we’ve seen was the 2009 Lions Series, what a bash-fest!!!
If the Currie Cup is deemed unmissable then Super Rugby must be left to the Aussies and Kiwis and SA goes it alone like in the old days.
We simply cannot have both anymore. Besides, too much of a good thing makes it boring and stale.
SARU have to sit down and realize that less rugby equals hungrier fans, which equals bigger viewing figures, which equals bigger money. Just check the Superbowl.
14 Feb 2012, 12:43 pm
@>^..^< katman-116: between yourself and Tacitus, you clearly find comfort in speculating about the goings-on during President Council meetings
do you okes have “impeccable sources” in SA Rugby?
surely you can’t expect us to believe your speculative bullshit about “political meddling” just because YOU have come up with it
14 Feb 2012, 12:44 pm
@Transformation-123:
Hang on, are you saying the Kings are being pushed for NON-political reasons?
Are you seriously suggesting that?
14 Feb 2012, 12:46 pm
@Train-112:
SA will still field 5 Teams.
5 New Teams.
I think the paying public in NZ and Australia would like this. A kind of revitalisation.
And Aussie do have a domestic Comp. It’s called the Super 15 Australian Conference…………………………………………………….and you Okes gave it to them.
And they love it.
8)
14 Feb 2012, 12:46 pm
@Tacitus-121: so in your mind, the idea that the Presidents Council had in 2005, loses credibilty as soon as Cheeky gets involved?
14 Feb 2012, 12:47 pm
WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS, PEOPLE
14 Feb 2012, 12:47 pm
@zoo cleaner-122:
Don’t come with logic and practical examples now.
Rugby okes reckon they are thinking out of the boks, meanwhile, they are thinking like one.
14 Feb 2012, 12:48 pm
@Tacitus-124: what political reasons did the Presidents Council have, tell us?
14 Feb 2012, 12:52 pm
Cane
Glad the Aussies and Kiwis will love them but at the end of the day they don’t have the same kind of money as the average saffer rugby supporter. There are less if them, they spend less on watching the game and don’t have the same kind of disposable income as the Saffers. Pity really
14 Feb 2012, 12:53 pm
@Transformation-129:
Listen to me veerrryy carefully. I’m gonna say this only once.
Your posts will carry much more weight and be taken far more seriously IF YOU LOSE THE FECKING STUPID IDIOTIC SMILEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14 Feb 2012, 12:53 pm
@Dawn-127: what would you rather we talk about Dawn, Valentine’s Day?
14 Feb 2012, 12:54 pm
@PissAnt-128:
Sorry, should have known better!!!
14 Feb 2012, 12:55 pm
@Dawn-131:
niiiiicceeee
14 Feb 2012, 12:57 pm
Trannie
Is your memory that short? They voted for it at various times to avoid amongst other things losing the Bok emblem, quotas at Bok level or losing their passports to Butane Compellor.
Don’t come and play the innocent now.
14 Feb 2012, 13:00 pm
@Transformation-134:
Man I’m being serious.
I’m trying to help you get keo cred here.
That smiley aint helping your cause.
Do you see Gravitas Tacitus putting smiley at end of every post.
No.
14 Feb 2012, 13:02 pm
@Tacitus-135: so it was never their intention to include SWD, EP & Border in Super Rugby, those unions can just stay playing craven week and churning out talented school boy players for the “elite” to swoop them up and offer them lucrative contracts faciliated by Super Rugby participation? ahhhh i get you now
14 Feb 2012, 13:03 pm
@Transformation-123: So, if not the Sports Ministry and the usual connected school of sucker fish that follow such decisions around, then WHO insisted on the inclusion of a team from the Xhosa heartland, regardless of whether they can beat anyone?
14 Feb 2012, 13:03 pm
@Dawn-136: like i give a f(uck about gravitas
14 Feb 2012, 13:04 pm
@cane-125:
you insufferable git.
14 Feb 2012, 13:05 pm
@Transformation-139:
I know you don’t.
But Gravitas aside.
I am being serious.
As someone I once knew so famously said: “Farking smileys”!
14 Feb 2012, 13:07 pm
@>^..^< katman-138: was the fact that they’re the only unions not participating or benefitting not reason enough that SARU should consider including them?
14 Feb 2012, 13:10 pm
@Transformation-142: And why were they not benefiting?
Come on, Transie, let’s not get caught up in ANC mediaspeak here, with selective memory and careful omission. They were not participating because they took the cash and rand when the Sharks offered them a well-earned divorce settlement. No one else kicked them out.
14 Feb 2012, 13:10 pm
@Dawn-136:
A strategical place “smilie” can intimate that the tone of your post is casual, engaging and non-confrontational.
I suspect this is Transie’s intent.
Tac is a Bully Boy…………………………………and an all together different beast. Embrace them both.
8)
14 Feb 2012, 13:10 pm
@>^..^< katman-143: rand = ran
14 Feb 2012, 13:11 pm
Valentines day far more interesting and relevant to talk about than the 16 franchise bubble that gonna burst when rugby per se run’s out of money..
Lions may be the first to feel the big freeze busting their balls but they certainly ain’t gonna be the last
Somebody better start getting a little real because seems most are simply dreaming in dayglo multi coloured technicolor delusions.
14 Feb 2012, 13:13 pm
@cane-144: Come on, it’ not that simple. Most people’s smileys here are the cyber equivalent of punching someone square on the nose and then saying “ha, just kidding”.
14 Feb 2012, 13:13 pm
@au revoir mon tout noirs, au revoir…-140:
The only thing that would make me happier than seeing a Big 5 Boycott…………………………………………..would be to see Bakkies in Pink.
14 Feb 2012, 13:15 pm
Ok. So the consensus is that basically we have 2 camps here:
One camp that sees the Kings inclusion as politically motivated, quota inspired and excused by the myth that millions of people in the Eastern Cape play rugby with a fanaticism that would make Che Guevara look like a Sunday school teacher, even though they cannot make the premier division with said player base, losing out to the Boland (even though any time a player with a glimmer of talent pops up in the Boland team they are snatched up into the WP structure) in the last season but if they get chosen they will then have the money to stock their team with players from other provinces and compete. See the irony of the last part?
The other camp consist of Keo, who had an obvious interest and will start to punt this agenda even harder in the future, and Transie, who appears to be in this club but hasn’t come out and explained his point of view explicitly, preferring to rather hint at things through cleverly aimed questions directed at other bloggers’ posts.
Do I have it right?
Missed out on anyone??
14 Feb 2012, 13:17 pm
@>^..^< katman-147:
Well yes ……………………………………there is that to.
it’s a rough and tumble world here on Keo.
I’m surprised you Saffa’s have not invented the Eye Gouge icon.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.