Kings deserve Super Rugby
7 Mar 2012
MARK KEOHANE, writing in Business Day Sport Monthly, says the Eastern Cape franchise doesn’t need to justify its place in next year’s competition.
It never ceases to amaze me how often the South African Rugby Union gets it wrong. What should have been a monumental announcement – that the Kings would play in Super Rugby from 2013 – turned into a debate of uncertainty as to whether or not South Africa would lose a franchise or convince New Zealand and Australia to accommodate a sixth South African team.
The wizards at Saru once again want it both ways.
The Kings deserve to be in Super Rugby, purely by virtue of promises made to the South African government when bidding to host the 2011 and 2015 Rugby World Cups. This time there was no escape, but instead of fronting the situation and making a decision on who falls out, the clever guys went cap in hand to Australia and New Zealand pleading for the expansion of the tournament.
The layman argument that the Kings don’t deserve to be in the competition is flawed on so many levels, as well as being an incredibly ignorant view.
The Kings are as deserving as any team and the rugby public forgets that the Lions and Cheetahs hardly won for 10 years and when the two sides combined as the Cats the results were as diabolical. The Kings can’t be a greater embarrassment than the 17 successive Lions defeats, as just one statistic.
The rugby argument aside, the decision to accommodate the region is an ethical one because a promise was made.
To recap for those suffering amnesia, Saru only stood a chance of hosting the 2011 World Cup if the government gave a financial guarantee and an endorsement. It was at a time when the sports ministry was fed up with the lack of transformation and continued neglect of rugby in the Eastern Cape.
Saru’s representatives promised a new beginning for the region and invested nearly R12-million in forming the Southern Spears, arranging friendly matches and promoting the region’s entry into Super Rugby in 2011. Then South Africa botched the bid, New Zealand struck a deal with Ireland and the rugby authorities backtracked on their enthusiasm for the region.
There was apparently too much division between Border, Eastern Province and South Western Districts. There was misadministration, claims of corruption and the convenient decision was that there was no way Saru could invest further in an Eastern Cape Super Rugby region. Saru then paid nearly R10-million to close down the region.
Very little happened between World Cup bids and when word was that South Africa was a guarantee to host 2015, again the emotional carrot of the Eastern Cape was dangled. Again it fell flat when South Africa cocked up in Dublin.
Only this time things were changing in the Eastern Cape. Cheeky Watson had been elected president and he declared that they would get their house in order and would be competitive in 2013.
He signed former Stormers and Ulster coach Alan Solomons and EP went from being the bunny boys to Currie Cup First Division champions in 2010 and runners-up in 2011. Support for the promotion-relegation match exceeded 40 000 and there were very good crowds for pre-season friendlies against the existing Super Rugby franchises.
The Kings, playing without a team sponsor, hammered the Bulls in a 2011 warm-up but the win was dismissed as the Bulls fielded an inexperienced side. Either way the Kings would be damned.
But in Watson and Solomons they have two rugby men who won’t give up and are prepared to put in the hours. The Kings became competitive with a limited squad because without Saru confirming their entry into the competition in 2013 it was impossible to attract top players.
The aim, with moderate talent, was to get the interest and the public responded. When EP hosted a Springbok Test against the All Blacks in 2011 the match was a sellout.
The region is ready to play and those who use the team’s performances in the First Division as a yardstick miss the point that the bulk of the 2013 squad will be imported from other regions and overseas. Transformation will be a big part of the Kings, but what will make them a success story is if they win and not how many black players start each match.
Solomons initiated a campaign of keeping the players home and bringing them home, given there were more than 40 players born and schooled in the Eastern Cape playing elsewhere.
The argument that the Kings had to earn the right through the Currie Cup has no merit. The need to have the Eastern Cape as a stronghold and growth point in South African rugby takes priority.
It was a similar situation to when the Natal Rugby Union couldn’t win a place in the six-team Currie Cup A division in the amateur era. A compromise between Natal and the national governing body was to expand the Currie Cup to eight teams and accommodate the Banana Boys, as they were then called.
Critics of the Kings’ entry have short memories. Natal built and bought a potent team and within a decade became the leading province in South Africa. With the right people, finance and commitment anything is possible.
Saru should have announced officially two years ago that the Kings would play in 2013, but they held back in the hope of an expanded competition. In the end Sanzar forced a decision out of them.
The Kings are there and that should not be a debate. A promise has finally been honoured and the embarrassment is in how long it took Saru’s administration to confirm it all … not in what the Kings will produce in the competition.
– This article appears in the March issue of Business Day Sport Monthly, which is on sale now at selected outlets. The April issue will be distributed FREE with Business Day newspaper on Friday, 23 March.
225 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All
7 Mar 2012, 17:03 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther(gunther)-196:
They don’t call them “chargers” for nothing.
7 Mar 2012, 17:10 pm
@Dawn(Dawn)-200: Howzit Dawn!
7 Mar 2012, 17:16 pm
@Atreides(Atreides)-199: too early to tell but they have keen youngsters
7 Mar 2012, 18:41 pm
Keo offers nothing as constructive reasoning in this debate other than a political promise – the rest is a whole shitload of waffle.
The biggest disservice you can do to a region (mostly made up of the PDI) is to ‘give’ them something for no other reason than the colour of their skin. It is insulting. I would dare anyone to go to a club where you will find a large majority of coloured or black rugby players and ask them what they want, or how they want to get it.
They are rugby players, not ******* politicians – and thank god they are getting tired of being used as political pawns.
If you want to serve this region and its rugby community, give them the tools to build something to be proud of. Invest in them. Don’t play political games with them.
If this means that all current Super Franchises commits to giving the Kings franchise X% of their SupeRugby Murdoch pie in addition to Currie Cup proper entrenchment to get sponsors on-board, then so be it. Because money is obviously the big issue here.
But for fucksake for once do something right.
7 Mar 2012, 19:01 pm
Right.
I’m back.
7 Mar 2012, 19:28 pm
The Kings won’t be ‘transformed’ at all. The Bulls will field more Black players than them.
7 Mar 2012, 19:50 pm
Keo is talking through his stofpoepertjie *** as usual, and making it up as he goes along or distorting the facts as it suits him
Firstly Natal played in the 1985 Currie Cup final agains a very strong WP side, they got there by beating Free State in a one off game between the no 2 Currie Cup A vs no 1 in the B division,
I think Craig Jamieson was their captain at that time
They proved that they belonged in the Currie Cup A division
Northern Transvaal had a hard time adapting to professional rugby, they had no money as they’ve funded their new Northern(?) stand by selling suites (losies) and season tickets ahead for a couple of years so they didn’t have the cash flow to pay salaries to players when the game turned pro
They and the Blue Bulls were bottom dwellers for a few years although they did win the 1998 CC, I think they even had to play relegation matches against the top Currie Cup second division teams
When Heyneke became the coach in 2000 he, Schwartz and the MD at the time (I can’t remember his name) started contracting U20 players as it was all they could afford
Yet, they won the 2001 Vodacom Cup and the 2002 Currie Cup and a lot more after that
If the Kings were so deserving they would have won something by now
If they have some many players at there disposal (200 000 is the number always bandied about on Keo) why did Daddy contract Luke at 3 million a year?
Surely he could buit a good team with all that depth?
The rugby public would be a lot more sympathetic to their Super Rugby inclusion as well if they’re giving the opportunity to players who wouldn’t get it otherwise, istead of stuffing Luke’s pockets
If the Bulls could win the Currie Cup in 2001 with unknown youngsters surely the deserving Kings should be able to win the Currie Cup B division at least?
7 Mar 2012, 20:46 pm
@victoriabok(victoriabok)-207: you count vodacom cups & alles & then u say if the kings were worth anything they would’ve won something by now…the EP Kings won the First Div currie cup in 2010, they were runners up last year.
7 Mar 2012, 20:50 pm
@victoriabok(victoriabok)-207: tacitus says luke’s salary is R3 million and everyone follows him like sheep. when i asked him to prove of reveal his source he weasel-ed out.
so where did you VB get that luke is paid such an amount?
7 Mar 2012, 21:12 pm
Luke walks on water.. he’s next to God down in tinsel town bay.. go ahead ask Marky parky he’ll confirm it as gospel truth…
7 Mar 2012, 21:22 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther(gunther)-196: I see you looking for some excitement in your life.. Has the poodle pimping lost its spark
@Atreides(Atreides)-197: I don’t mind the banter.. but the fk is stalking my daughter and that makes it dangerous… I hire people to sort out that kind of problem.. we are close to finding him
7 Mar 2012, 21:22 pm
Well Puke’s dad & friends got him to play for the Boks once, now they need to get the King Puke’s in the S16….so who will support these guys, I really feel sorry for them but guess they was promised big things to come.
7 Mar 2012, 21:34 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-208:
Exactly, they should have played their way into the Currie Cup, they couldn’t even win their relegation matches
Natal did even better, they proved it by beating the no 2 in the Currie Cup, not losing against the last team in the CC
Although they were a weak side at the time, the Blue Bulls still won their relegation matches to stay in the CC
7 Mar 2012, 21:39 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-209:
I’ve read it on Keo, I think PA mentioned it
If you claim it’s wrong please do tell what he really earns?
7 Mar 2012, 22:07 pm
@ashampoopaloo(joel1yahoo)-210:
Nope it’s not about Luke
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-204:
> If this means that all current Super Franchises commits to giving the Kings franchise X% of their SupeRugby Murdoch pie in addition to Currie Cup proper entrenchment to get sponsors on-board, then so be it.
> Because money is obviously the big issue here.
It’s more about the Loot than the Luke
Like all his struggle buddies Cheeky wants to cash in big time
Wonder how big Keo’s cut’s going to be?
Maybe he can buy himself another pink tie and hang himself for all his disservice to SA rugby?
7 Mar 2012, 22:24 pm
@victoriabok(victoriabok)-213: mate, the currie cup is no yardstick of how a franchise will do in super rugby in the same way the ITM Cup is not used to determine who is part of what franchise and who is not!
this whole they must prove themselves nonsense is convivient obfuscation. in 2005 when the 5th franchise was made available the lions & cheetahs split and they were HANDED franchises and it was agreed that whoever finishes last in 2006 will be relegated like the Stormers were previously all those years back, in 2006 the lions finished last now tell me WHY they were not relegated?
just tell me why?
7 Mar 2012, 22:38 pm
@victoriabok(victoriabok)-215: man grow up. the idea of a franchise in this region is not cheekys idea how long must i say this?
the CEO of the Kings is Stefan Pretorius not Cheeky Watson.
are the likes of kevin de klerk, tobie titus or graham mackenzie also “cashing in”?
7 Mar 2012, 22:50 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-216:
> the currie cup is no yardstick of how a franchise will do in super rugby
I know, look how the Bulls won the Currie Cup from 2002-2004 and shared it 2006 yet could only win it in 2007, although they did play two away Super semi finals as well
However, if your team is good enough to perform at Currie Cup level you will have some players good enough to make the step up to Super Rugby, you’ll probably have some Boks in your squad as well
You’ll have the player depth in most positions too
> in the same way the ITM Cup is not used to determine who is part of what franchise and who is not!
If you’re honest most of the SA franchises use 99% of the parent union’s own contracted players and only the Cheetahs use a lot of Griqua’s players.
And if they do “borrow” a good player, he’ll be one of their contracted players come the next season
You must also tell us what do you think the Kings are planning to achieve in the Super tournament?
Are they there just to be there, or do they really think they will manage to get to a semi in the next ten years?
7 Mar 2012, 23:14 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-216:
> this whole they must prove themselves nonsense is convivient obfuscation.
No it’s not, when it was the Super 10 the teams that finished 1-2-3 in the Currie Cup the previous year played the Super 10 the next.
When it became the Super 12 they added a fourth and when the SA teams formed conferences it stayed that way
> in 2005 when the 5th franchise was made available the lions & cheetahs split and they were HANDED franchises and it was agreed that whoever finishes last in 2006 will be relegated like the Stormers were previously all those years back, in 2006 the lions finished last now tell me WHY they were not relegated?
> just tell me why?
I can’t tell you why but I have a good idea, who else would have had the money and players to compete?
EP?
The crooks running it at that time was too busy carrying off all its money and assets
7 Mar 2012, 23:47 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-217:
> man grow up.
Rather rich from someone thinking a team should be entitled to play in a premier competition just because they claim there’s lots of players around or because the ruling party wants it
> the idea of a franchise in this region is not cheekys idea how long must i say this?
Fact is how many Currie Cups or any other trophies has EP ever won?
Compare that against Transvaal/Lions and Free State/Cheetahs?
> the CEO of the Kings is Stefan Pretorius not Cheeky Watson.
Like Putin he’s the power (and the face) behind the throne, although not “officialy” in charge
> are the likes of kevin de klerk, tobie titus or graham mackenzie also “cashing in”?
Maybe, maybe not but in the end it depends how succesful your team is on the pitch, the Stormers have been in a semi and a final the last two years and the Lions albeit bankrupt, have won the CC due to Kevin getting the right coach etc
What real PROGRESS have the Kings made on the pitch?
They couldn’t even win the CC B division, do you really think they’ll have the players to beat the Super 15 teams or to even just to last the whole tournament?
You should see how sports work in NA, if your city doesn’t have the facilities or the money and will to improve it you lose your team.
No Cheeky, comrade or any amount of race card playing would help if it’s not economically feasible
Seattle lost their hockey team and the SuperSonics and they’re trying hard to get two teams back by building a $500 mil stadium
Winnipeg lost their NHL team because their ring was to small. They built a new one and got a team back on the premise that they have to play in front of a packed house. They sold all their season tickets in 17 minutes. Google the “Winnipeg Jets”
7 Mar 2012, 23:48 pm
the title has been jumbled
‘Does SuperRugby deserve the Kings ?’
and we ALL know the answer to that.
8 Mar 2012, 00:11 am
@Love the taste of Bok Prick in my mouth-221:
> ‘Does SuperRugby deserve the Kings ?’and we ALL know the answer to that.
Even a broken watch is right twice a day
For once I agree with you, if you take the reserves of the bottom dwellers of each of the conferences last year and cobble together a team, they would most likely beat the Kings
8 Mar 2012, 06:02 am
@I want to Prick-Boks in their South! (I want to Prick-Boks in their South!)-221:
hehehe…
well we ALL know the nature of your obsession with south african rugby players, pigeons holes and little yapping dogs…
you have all the intelligence and originality of a noddy-dog on the back windowsill of 1960s volvo car…
made this comment at #29 already…
no wonder you spend all day yap-yapping… like a bored dog at the garden gate watching the world go by, you yap to fill the vacuous silence in your head… you don’t even know why… much like the noddy-dog has no control of its movements… that’s what its role is and it just does it…
no thought required…
11 Mar 2012, 04:22 am
The so-called “Kings” are as comprehensively awful as their serial loser so-called “coach” Alan Solomons and… well, what can we say about Cheeky’s boy that hasn’t already been said?
11 Mar 2012, 04:48 am
Promotion / Relegation.
Argument over. No more Kings.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.