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, 10:10 am
Kings do not deserve promotion as Boland, Griquas and Pumas are better than them!
Not even talking of Cheetahs, Lions, Bulls, Sharks and Stormers.
Why should they get it, they also does not look like a “black” team , but like a bunch of well paid old has beens(or never beens!)
7 Mar 2012, 10:11 am
We don’t actually have the depth the field 5 teams IMO.
The format should be shrunk, not expanded.
Top 2 or 3 teams in a quick round robin after the domestic competitions have concluded.
Oh. Wait.
The Aussies don’t have a domestic competition. This is it.
Now I see.
7 Mar 2012, 10:11 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-24:
What he said Keo. What he said.
7 Mar 2012, 10:11 am
@line break(line break)-39:
I agree about one thing. The sad truth is that we dont have the debth in quality players to have 6 or 5 or 4 teams, but greed plays a big role in rugby these days. If it where true then at least 4 of our 5 teams would make the top half of the log on a regular basis…
7 Mar 2012, 10:14 am
There are only two legit ways for the Kings to get into Super Rugby:
1. Qualify for the 2013 CC premier division by winning the 2012 lower division. Then end amongst the top 5 teams in the 2013 season to become one of the 5 franchises for the 2014 Super15.
2. Play a home-and-away promotion/relegation match against the side that comes last in then 2012 Super15 SA Conference, thereby replacing them in the 2013 Super15 (if they win, of course).
7 Mar 2012, 10:16 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-52:
You have my backing on this point.
100%.
7 Mar 2012, 10:17 am
The Kings “deserve” Super rugby?
KAK!
7 Mar 2012, 10:18 am
@>^..^< katman(katman)-55: It’s a nofuckenbrainer, isn’t it?
7 Mar 2012, 10:18 am
We already have 2 useless teams. Why would we want another easy 5 points for the keevies and ozzies?
7 Mar 2012, 10:19 am
Rise the Mighty Elephants!!
Despatch!!
7 Mar 2012, 10:26 am
Where is Transie?
Keo industrial action?
Virtual toyi-toyi?
7 Mar 2012, 10:30 am
@the artist formerly known as gunther(gunther)-61: Isn’t he a steward in the big Xhosa II march today? Tony Erenreich put him in charge of dustbin flipping. It’s a big day for our Trannie.
7 Mar 2012, 10:32 am
@greatest13gerber(greatest13gerber)-60: the only sense you’ve ever typed on this site is when you typed your nic while registering…
7 Mar 2012, 10:32 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-20:
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-38:
look, i do have a soft spot for the spur every so often but you really have to pick your spot, time and day of the week wise.
7 Mar 2012, 10:32 am
Ok so as some may already know, Pissant (Morne) has a rugby site called Ruggaworld, where I get all my decent rugby info from, and he posted an article from (Tank Lanning) about audience viewership for the first 2 rounds of Supe Rugby.
Guess which 2 games had the highest viewership??
You guessed it.
Both Stormers games.
So not only do we have the highest average attendance at our stadium, but we have the most people watching our games.
So I don’t want to hear another word about Sharks this and Bulls that as far as “brand” and most supporters” go.
As usual, talking out of your arse.
The fact that the Sharks played in the second game is obviously not the drawcard as the next most popular game is also the Stormers.
For completeness sake, you can view the table here:
http://www.ruggaworld.com/2012/03/07/tv-ratings-drop-in-round-2-of-superugby/
7 Mar 2012, 10:36 am
@>^..^< katman(katman)-55: Agreed. Unfortunately this logical approach, supported by so many is worthless in this country.
South Africa nourishes the weak and punishes the strong through systems like BEE, Employment Equity, Transformation, Affirmative Action, Reverse Apartheid or Theft……whichever you prefer to call it. And ultimately, ALL skin tones will be negatively affected by this.
Thank the Lord that by the time this whole ‘jannie jammergat’ system fails, I will be several thousands of kilometers away. Thank Heavens for that !
7 Mar 2012, 10:38 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-65: ya but most of the bulls fans are watching at the shebeens in soweto and mamelodi, aren’t they? so that’s 1 tv to 200 people….
7 Mar 2012, 10:40 am
@JONCK. All those teams that you claim are better than the Kings, already have exposure to Super Rugby. Boland falls under Stormers, Griquas under Cheetahs and Pumas under Lions. And yes, they do benefit from being part of those franchise setups. The EC teams (EP, Border and SWD) are the only unions in SA Rugby NOT to benefit from Super Rugby at present.
SARU has made so many promises to them in the past, but never kept to it. No wonder rugby in that region suffered over the last few years, The fact that EP managed to “rise”, is really admirable.
and by the way, dont be so sure that Griquas and Pumas are better than EP. EP did beat them last year 26 – 16 and 23 – 8…
7 Mar 2012, 10:40 am
I deserve…..
Bullshit.
Life is harsh and then you die.
Keo’s client deserves to play super rugby.
7 Mar 2012, 10:42 am
@Dusky(Dusky)-66: jeezuz, do you have to use every ****** possible opportunity to tell us that you are emmigrating? fukoffandgetdonewithit…
7 Mar 2012, 10:43 am
@Jeez(Jeez)-42:
to compare the history of the bulls to the history of the lions(cats) is deliriously disingenius to say the least.
chalk and cheese my china…chalk and cheese…
7 Mar 2012, 10:43 am
@Dusky(Dusky)-66: You still in SA? Wassa matter? And where are you fleeing to?
7 Mar 2012, 10:44 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-24:
Very good post.
7 Mar 2012, 10:45 am
@Alfie7(Alfie7)-68: EP was part of the Sharks but decided to take the money and leave. Their own ******* doing.
7 Mar 2012, 10:47 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-52:
exactly my opinion…
cc teams competing for fewer super slots would mean sa is far more competitive… not only in super rugby but try nations and other internationals as well…
we’ve got to reward excellence and be accountable for our failures…
and would mean less wear and tear on all players… and longer careers… and more sustained success in the long term…
but i would like to see the kings getting stronger and really deserving their place…
saru have really fawked this up royally…!
7 Mar 2012, 10:48 am
This rather ridiculous article by KEO essentially highlights why a journo should remain only a journo (and not venture into… I don’t know… let’s say talent representation) if a journo wishes to maintain his integrity and pen credible content.
7 Mar 2012, 10:51 am
Kings already in super rugby, now just a question who to get rid off. My money on the lions…. worse record in super rugby, cant fill a stadium and bankrupt
7 Mar 2012, 10:51 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-65:
is this news…?
the pattern is repeated year after year…
7 Mar 2012, 10:56 am
As I predicted
Same old same old
7 Mar 2012, 10:57 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-65:
It all them closet boys from North of the Jukskei (and Slummies) that wont admit to, but cannot miss watching a Stormers game that boost the viewing audience
7 Mar 2012, 11:01 am
@ufo(ufo)-78: You and I have known this for some time. Now there are more statistics to prove it though.
Check out the article. The next 2 most popular games, were on at similar times to the most popular 2, so it’s not a “time-slot” issue,.
Also that fact that a Stormers vs a lowly team like the Canes is more popular than the Bulls-Sharks or the other local derbies says a lot.
7 Mar 2012, 11:09 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-81:
yeah i know bud…
very interesting reading
7 Mar 2012, 11:13 am
Boddie
I’m in the pharmacy do you want me to pick up some cream for your itchy v@gina?
7 Mar 2012, 11:23 am
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-71:
Why?
7 Mar 2012, 11:24 am
@the artist formerly known as gunther(gunther)-83:
Pray tell,,,, what are you doing in the pharmacy??
Let me suggest…… nah, lets not go there….
7 Mar 2012, 11:34 am
@atlas… that’s only half the story. Sharks had all kinds of issues to play in EL and PE at the time.
Among their reasons was Teichman claiming that playing there was no “home gound” advantage for the team. (That doesnt surprise me at all, because Natal and EP were fierce rivals at the time)
Natal simply wanted to have all the games in Durban. Also, Natal went further and contracted many of the EP guys who made the Sharks setup. Ricardo Loubscher and Deon Kayser to name just two. EP guys who didn’t go to Natal, just simply didnt get any game time.
Besides all of this – The EC region is still without Super Rugby and SARU has been promising them that since mid 2000′s already. So all the Kings really want now and what they will be getting, is what was promised to them. This battle has been going on since before Cheeky already
7 Mar 2012, 11:46 am
@Alfie7(Alfie7)-86:
Thats whats making the whole thing such a bitter pill. WIth the Watsons, its not about giving the EC supporters a team in the super comp they can support, but its about making a political point. Rugby takes a back seat when the Watsons are involved. Problem is after the Spears’ bid failed, they had years to make it a better rugby orientated decision, but they decided to take the easy road and got politicians to put pressure on SARU. Thats not the way it should be.
7 Mar 2012, 12:03 pm
@Jeez, i hear you. But if SARU kept their promises to start with, it wouldnt be necessary for politics to be involved.
Rugby in the EC region suffered, not because of the Watsons, but because of SARU not keeping to their word. At least SARU is now trying to fix their mistake. I hate to see any other franchise suffer, but the time for the Kings is long overdue.
To have no Super Rugby in such a large geographical area with so many players (playing and originating from there) simply does not make sense.
Also, to expect the Kings to play their way into Super Rugby is not fair. Like i mentioned before, the Kings teams (EP, Brdr and SWD) are the only teams which gain nothing from Super Rugby. can you really expect them to now “prove” themselves against sides who have had Super Rugby for so many years? Once the playing field is level, ie Kings have had Super Rugby for a couple of seasons, THEN comparisons can be made.
7 Mar 2012, 12:14 pm
@Jeez(Jeez)-87: this is such a boring topic now and quite frankly i’m sick of it…just destroy the Kings franchise too and let the Lions or whoever comes last keep the spot.
you talk about “rugby reasons”, read the following and tell me that the Spears franchise was destroyed for “rugby reasons” when Oregan Hoskins was using every NEFARIOUS trick in the book to keep the team that had finished last in 2006 from not getting relegated, in the process breaking a contract SARU had signed with the Spears in 2005?
Saru broke company law
19 Sep 2006
SA Rugby has acted “illegally and immorally” by writing up minutes of meetings with the Spears unions before the meetings had actually taken place.
This is according to corporate governance experts contacted by the EP Herald newspaper.
SA Rugby’s managing director Basil Haddad confirmed that he had written up the minutes before the meetings in order to buy a 25.1% shareholding in the three unions, which would have given Saru a 50% shareholding in the Spears, and allowed them to withdraw the franchise from the Super 14.
Professor Kathy Munro, a corporate governance expert at Wits University, told the EP Herald that drawing up minutes before a meeting had taken place was illegal.
“It’s simply bad practice, it’s immoral, not to mention that it’s in contravention of company law, she said. “Then why have an executive committee in the first place? The person who wrote those minutes is placing the company at risk both legally and financially.”
tip of the iceberg
7 Mar 2012, 12:21 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-65:
Hold your horses before popping that champaigne cork, lad.
Firstly, you can ignore all Friday night games, as they can’t compete with the Saturday night timeslot.
Secondly, I watched the Stormers vs Canes, and I’m no Stormer supporter. It was their opening game, on a Saturday night, everyone wanted to see what they look like this year. (And we got our answer).
As for the Sharks vs Stormers on a 7pm Saturday timeslot – put the Bulls up against the Sharks in that timeslot and then we can talk again.
The Cheetahs vs Lions almost outscored the Bulls Cheetahs game. Because we thought it would be competitive, which everyone knew the Bulls game would not be.
That’s probably another reason the Stormers Canes game scored highly – we knew it could go either way…
Let’s compare apples with apples, shall we.
7 Mar 2012, 13:04 pm
I think that its flawed argument by Kohane to imply that the Kings are owed a franchise. Yes, it appears that Cheeky Watson and Solomon’s has done some fantastic work, but don’t forget that it was a transformed administration board that ran the union into the ground with bad administration and corruption. It is only of their own making that EP is in such a mess. Why not give Griquas a franchise then. They have even less money, but they seem to have a competitive team almost every year in the currie cup. Look at some of the fantastic players they have produced over the years and most of colour. Bjorn Basson, Zane Kirchner, Mokohena, Rebenheimer to name a few.
What EP needs to do is invest in a 5 to 10 year plan and invest in their youth system and get them to a level where they are winning the under 21 league at a regular stage. The same applies to the Varsity cup. It is no coincidence that the Stormers have improved in the last couple of years. They had a fantastic under 21 team and varsity cup teams to draw players from.
The theory of importing players to make up the numbers doesn’t always work. My final point is that they need to get their business in order. It is a professional game now. I for one would love to see them succeed, but you can’t just blame SARU.
7 Mar 2012, 13:18 pm
@Bod(bod)-85:
I was getting some cream for your puss filled kisser.
I wasn’t sure if the Itinerant Fruit Pickers Union’s medical aid covered that.
I’ve left it for you at the Edgemead Nightshelter together with a happy box of Suiwersap Red.
7 Mar 2012, 13:25 pm
@Tacitus(Deucalion)-90: I see.
Apples with apples you say.
Ok, so by that am I to infer that not only are some Blue Bulls supporters obviously closet Stormers supporters too, but that they, apart from being fair weather supporters, are mostly Saturdays only as well??
Lets look at the top 4 games, all played on a Saturday, The bulls-Cheetahs game for example. Or the Lions Cheetahs game.
Hoe’d you like them apples?
Fact is, the Stormers get the most viewers. Their stands are consistently the fullest.
I, by the way, watch the other games too, so that is obviously factored into this, but you can’t get away from the facts, no matter how you choose to interpret them.
7 Mar 2012, 13:30 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-93:
I’m glad you bring up the Bulls-Cheetahs game.
The Bulls-Cheetahs game drew almost 700k viewers, compared to the Stormers-Sharks 776k. That’s just a 10% difference.
So going by your logic, the combined viewer support for the Stormers and Sharks is only 10% greater than for the Bulls and Cheetahs combined?
Come now. You’re smarter than that.
7 Mar 2012, 13:35 pm
@Tacitus(Deucalion)-94: Well actually, the common denominator in games 3 & 4 is not in fact the Bulls, but rather the Cheetahs.
So I can believe it.
Not sure where it leaves the Bulls though.
7 Mar 2012, 13:37 pm
Here’s a nice article for you:
Bulls dominate Currie Cup viewership – 11 August 2011
After only four rounds of the 2011 Absa Currie Cup, the Vodacom Blue Bulls are leading the race in SuperSport’s audience ratings, having surpassed the half a million mark (566,832) in their opening encounter against the Sharks in mid-July.
The Bulls also took second, third and fourth position on the viewership log with the next highest figure recorded being the 484,506 audience who viewed the game against DHL Western Province at DHL Newlands Stadium on 30th July.
In third place was the 475,864 viewers who tuned in to watch the Bulls in action against the Golden Lions at Loftus Versfeld on 6th August.
The Vodacom Blue Bulls lowest audience ratings after four weeks was 404,010 (Vodacom Blue Bulls vs Toyota Free State Cheetahs on 23rd July 2011), which was still higher than the best figures for DHL Western Province, GWK Griquas, MTN Golden Lions, Platinum Leopards and Pumas.
According to Repucom, the average audience during live coverage of Vodacom Blue Bulls games is 23.7% higher when compared to the average audience across all Absa Currie Cup games, a stat which Blue Bulls company CEO Barend van Graan is delighted with…
End of article
Give the Bulls a Saturday night game against the Sharks and then we see how the 776k figure stacks up, shall we.
7 Mar 2012, 13:39 pm
@Jeez(Jeez)-84:
are you asking me to do a comparison of the bulls history versus the lions in super rugby..?.. because i can…
7 Mar 2012, 13:42 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-95:
What a silly statement. Which you’ll privately acknowledge, once you’ve given it a moment’s thought.
Try to be honest in your debating style, rather than just saying things to make a quick comeback. It will improve your credibility.
7 Mar 2012, 13:47 pm
@Tacitus(Deucalion)-96: Great article, and it proves my point.
Last year you guys struggled in Super Rugby so your supporters turned to the Currie Cup, which (at the time obviously) you were hoping you’d do well in.
Tell you what: If you can find me official stat that show that the Bulls games averaged higher TV viewers last year than the Stormers I’ll eat my words.
7 Mar 2012, 13:48 pm
@Tacitus(Deucalion)-98: 100
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.