Saru seeking lifeline for Lions
16 Aug 2012
The South African Rugby Union’s leadership says they have committed to finding alternative competitions for the Lions to participate in, including exploring the possibility of their inclusion in the European Cup.
On Thursday it was announced that the Lions would be the franchise to drop out of Super Rugby in 2013 in order for the Kings to be accommodated. This will leave the Johannesburg franchise without a high level of competition from the start of 2013 through to August, at which stage they’ll have a promotion-relegation play-off against the last-placed side in the South African conference.
The implications of this situation for the Lions are wide-ranging, the most significant of which is that their best players, many of whom are only have a couple of months to run on their contracts, will seek to play elsewhere.
Keo.co.za can confirm that the Lions’ leadership has already engaged their senior players on the idea of a loan to another franchise for 2013, in a bid to retain them. Whether this ploy succeeds remains to be seen.
Saru, represented by president Oregan Hoskins and CEO Jurie Roux at a press briefing in Cape Town, has insisted it is working to increase the options available to the Lions and their players.
‘The amount of work that went into trying to trying to find alternatives – entry into competitions in Europe, trying to get new structures in place [in Super Rugby, that is, changing the format to include an additional team] – just trying to get a better position for the franchise that was going to fall out, was continuous over the last six months,’ Roux said.
‘We reached the point where we couldn’t postpone this decision any longer but that doesn’t mean we can’t still find some form of competition for the Lions. That will be a tough task and maybe it will be a downgraded competition. We’ve been speaking to IRB about possible inclusion into the European Cup, the Nations Cup and Pacific Cup, just to provide an opportunity. We’ll even hope that somehow we can convince Sanzar that whatever [expansion] is happening post 2015 can be brought forward to 2014. We’d need to convince the broadcasters and partners and we’ll certainly try to at our next meeting.’
The financial implications for the Lions are self-evident, with a loss of gate, advertising and merchandising revenue (among other income streams) to seriously affect their bottom line. They already find themselves in a perilous financial state following the Guma Group’s withdrawal from the franchise and lengthy legal battles with franchise partners, the Pumas and Leopards.
However, Roux said they were open to discussing means of assisting the franchise financially.
‘We’ve got an agreed upon funding model that was decided in November 2009. It includes all six franchises. That runs through to 2015, so irrespective of whether you are playing Super Rugby or not you are still getting your share of the broadcasting revenue,’ he said.
‘No decision has been made on any additional funding. We need to look at how we can assist at keeping the Lions running so that they are able to compete should they win promotion in 2013.’
Roux also didn’t rule out the possibility of the Lions negotiating a merger with another franchise, although this is a highly unlikely scenario.
‘Initially there was a lot of discussion about the possible merger or whoever dropped out would go into a merger with the Kings for the rest of the period of the contract. [If] that happens is up to the Lions and the Kings. They are official franchises and should run their business accordingly,’ he said.
Roux added that the possibility that the Lions could challenge the decision legally, but said he hoped that wouldn’t happen.
Asked to assess their leadership on a saga that became incredibly messy and embarrassing for South African rugby, Hoskins said: ‘South African rugby is a tough terrain. We have passionate constituencies and it is always a more challenging environment than our Australasian partners. We’ve got to do the best we can.
‘We’ve done a lot of soul searching around this. The issue of the Spears goes back to 2005 so until now we’ve tried. Under all these circumstances it is the best we could do.’
By Ryan Vrede
90 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
16 Aug 2012, 17:56 pm
European Challenge Cup Dragons!
16 Aug 2012, 18:02 pm
‘We’ve been speaking to IRB about possible inclusion into the European Cup, the Nations Cup and Pacific Cup, just to provide an opportunity. We’ll even hope that somehow we can convince Sanzar that whatever [expansion] is happening post 2015 can be brought forward to 2014. We’d need to convince the broadcasters and partners and we’ll certainly try to at our next meeting.’
**strong>‘No decision has been made on any additional funding. We need to look at how we can assist at keeping the Lions running so that they are able to compete should they win promotion in 2013.’
Possible, hope, talks, no decisions, no plan, no roadmap – incompetence.
If anyone for one second thinks today’s decision provided a ‘solution’ they are ******* stupid.
I have been a vocal supporter of the Spears/Kings since 2007, today’s decision is even worse for rugby in this region than when they got shafted in 2007.
SA Rugby has no plan, no idea on how to fix this even if it is obvious to most rugby supporters and has been since 2005.
The level of incompetence is astounding.
The Lions will get the ‘support’ from SA Rugby the Kings enjoyed since 2005 – the Kings themselves are now given a ‘no-hope-in-hell’ chance to ‘prove’ they belong at Super Rugby level.
SA Rugby is littered with ******* idiots.
16 Aug 2012, 18:16 pm
PA
due to no planning this is doomed to fail
16 Aug 2012, 19:04 pm
2, hold on pa….i do not think you can lay all the blame squarely at saru doorstep. It is hardly their fault that the lions are superkak and superbroke and that ep weilds dangerous transformation polotics like it is a wild west sixshooter. Sure, promises were made, yet in this world despite the best of intentions…**** happens and plans change. Personally, i see it as the problem of the relevent unions and franchises to sort themselves out.
16 Aug 2012, 19:05 pm
O bloed!
16 Aug 2012, 19:09 pm
Wanted to post something but then i remember this is about politics… imo.
So nada.
16 Aug 2012, 19:10 pm
For me id give the ep franchise a 2 season grace period…..after that if they get relegated out of sight,tough luck, or the lions for that matter. PersonallY i do not see the ep franchise doing much because the feeder unions are pants.
16 Aug 2012, 19:17 pm
Despite that….european inclusion really excites me the way superrugb usedto
16 Aug 2012, 19:22 pm
@Brigadier Van Zyl-4:
Forget the Lions Brig.
This deal gives the Kings no hope in hell to succeed.
16 Aug 2012, 19:24 pm
@Brigadier Van Zyl-8:
If SARU could not get the Kings into European leagues, this is nothing more than lip-service.
They are shifting the problem to a team with a different coloured shirt. This is not a solution, it’s a cop-out.
16 Aug 2012, 19:25 pm
Kings must shape up or they are out next season and any player worth his weight is not going to sign for longer than to the end of next Super rugby season, the Lions will be back and then you sit without a game. I see MTN have backed the Lions until the mid 2013, and as for Guma thugs well Cheeky is welcome to them.
Transformation my eye, politics politics.
We will see how many people go to the matches after they have lost four on the trott, the same crowd that booed the springboks, complete plonkers.
16 Aug 2012, 19:41 pm
So, E-news just reported that the voting result was 23-6.
Each union gets 2 votes and Oregan gets 1 deciding vote.
That means that only 3 unions voted in support of the Lions.
My guess is that would be the Lions, Bulls and Sharks.
That means that all the smaller unions voted for the Kings, in order to avoid the 6th Currie Cup spot being reserved for the Kings if they didn’t get Super Rugby inclusion.
And it also means that the Cheetahs were looking after no.1 in trying to get the heat reduced by giving the Kings what they d*mn well demand.
And it also means that the Cape Crusader dominated WP cabal voted for the Kings as well.
That’s my take on how it went down.
16 Aug 2012, 19:53 pm
@Tacitus-12:
You know what they say about assumptions…
16 Aug 2012, 19:55 pm
@PissAnt-13:
I’d love if you could give us the true voting breakdown..
16 Aug 2012, 20:06 pm
@Brigadier Van Zyl-4:
@Brigadier Van Zyl-7:
strongly agree.
16 Aug 2012, 20:10 pm
Do the European Teams get any say in this? I can’t see it happening, their schedule isn’t consistent with ours. Its a ridiculous suggestion, SARU are just trying to save face but that ship has long sailed.
16 Aug 2012, 20:12 pm
I still think that Sanzar should keep it at 15. With South Africa’s 6th team playing in Europe.
The big change that I would make would be to have each team only play against foreign opposition. 5 home and 5 away.
This will do away with the local teams playing each other when they have their own competitions to play against each other (time for Oz to fund their own union)
16 Aug 2012, 20:12 pm
@Tacitus-12:
Look at the upside.
You’ll get to see Super Rugby live. You might even get some Bulls autographs if you’re lucky.
Hell, you might even decide to buy season tickets to the Nelson Mandela Stadium.
16 Aug 2012, 20:13 pm
what really interests me is when the SANZAR agreement gets renegotiated in 3 years time. Its time to tell our ‘friends’ in SANZAR that as we bring in the money we call the shots. And hopefully by then we have an administrator who knows how to wheel and deal.
16 Aug 2012, 20:27 pm
If one must try to find an upside to this unholy politically motivated pile of faeces, then it would be something along the lines of: at least they should get to play the We Must Have It card once only, and that’s done now. And it came at a relatively small cost.
This is kind of like being tried for a crime you didn’t commit, and having to plead guilty to a lesser charge to serve one year instead of five.
Air punch.
16 Aug 2012, 20:30 pm
One year
Should make everyone happy
16 Aug 2012, 20:32 pm
@Dawn-21: Speak for yourself, unionist.
16 Aug 2012, 20:43 pm
can somebody plz tell which unions voted for the lions???
16 Aug 2012, 20:48 pm
@14261774-23:
E-News’ reported from SARUA HQ earlier said the voting result was 23-6.
But just now the news anchor said it was a unanimous decision. I think she was talking nonsense, because at the very least the Lions would have voted against it.
I believe the reporter from the scene earlier, with the lady anchor simply not knowing the difference between the meaning of unanimous and overwhelming.
16 Aug 2012, 20:50 pm
Sorry havent read any of the comments. Would just like to add that the ‘lifeline’ SARU is seeking sounds like a bunch of bla bla to me. It doesnt sound like theyve done shite.
The poor Lions and Kings are getting screwed big time.
Cant see a European inclusion happening ,which would actually be beneficial for the Lions financially, otherwise they would have mentioned it as being a viable solution. Wish it could be though. A 10 hour flight to europe compared to a 16 hour flight sounds better, plus same time zone…
16 Aug 2012, 20:58 pm
SARU can start by garanteeing that Ellispark is awarded a Test match against all touring sides in 2013, then they must award the side that is not playing super rugby the international 7′s tournament in December, and this is only to make up for loss of income.
The solution on loss of players is easy the Springboks should be chosen from the CC division as well, the current players only move to the big unions because the Springboks are only chosen from the S15 sides. Hopefully HM will spread his net wider.
Cheers see you in a years time I will be disconnectng my dstv and taking a sebaticle of all things SA rugby for a year.
Lions4Life.
16 Aug 2012, 20:59 pm
how many teams are there in the European cup?
Hypothetically speaking, I guess the Lions will have the benefit of having a bunch of home games before playing all there away games in a row and vice versa
16 Aug 2012, 21:01 pm
*their
16 Aug 2012, 21:09 pm
Well it was bound to happen. Broederbond pricks at the GLRU finally got what they deserved. Pfuckers all of them.
If they buy into this story then they are even more stupid than dogshit. I expect many a player to exercise their no super rugby escape clause to leave the den leaving then with a less than 40% chance of winning promotion back into super rugby. When the sponsors leave it is goodnight baby.
We will be back … In 2016 if the SARU pfuckers get it right.
16 Aug 2012, 21:17 pm
@Jeez-27:
Do you think the European teams want to fly 10 hours to play at altitude?
16 Aug 2012, 21:17 pm
fuckk you keo fuckk your azz buddy cheeky fuckk the kings and fuckk the anc. tuff titty pal
16 Aug 2012, 21:22 pm
Now Saru wants the Lions to embarrass us on a European scale!Crazy idea that will never get off the ground.
16 Aug 2012, 21:29 pm
Unionist!
16 Aug 2012, 21:36 pm
@Blitzbok-31:
Keo-caine is probably celebrating, dressed only in that hideous pink tie, with a couple of kilos of blow, Nikita the hockey chick and Ryan in his RuPaul outfit
Now he’s gonna roll in it, all the backroom communication deals made with Cheeky will kick in now
Watch this website, before the EOYT they’ll start pushing Puke for the Boks again
16 Aug 2012, 21:44 pm
everyone saying it is about politics you are missing the picture. it is about a stadium management contract for the nelson mandela stadium that cheeky and kie entered into after the world cup. stofile et al is part of this. they have profit sharing in this stadium in their contract. the ONLY hope in hell that they have to make PROFIT is to have super rugby there.
it is NOT about transformation, it is not about politics, hell it is not even about rugby, it is about a stadium management contract with vested intrests for the players in this saga, in short it is about MONEY, that is all.
cheeky and kie are using “transformation” as cover and as political leverage to get their stadium filled so that they can make MONEY. if it was REALY about transformation why does puke watson not make place for a more deserving black player, of which we hear EP has many? His WHITE *** (although him and his apartheid strugle hero dad think they are black) is keeping a more deserving black player on the bench.
If it was REALY about politics, transformation and rugby, why only 3 black players in the team? why import overseas WHITE coaches? why contract in WHITE players from other provinces?
Smoke and mirrors, just to keep your attention away from the shareholdings at nelson mandela stadium and the way these guys figured to make good of the profit sharing clause in their management contract. Learned their tricks from their ANC budies.
16 Aug 2012, 22:00 pm
Crazy decisionmaking. The Kings are dead ducks with a one year sword over their heads. The Lions thoroughly deserved their relegation. Promotion-relegation happens all over the world. Give the Kings two seasons and then move into a promotion-relegation system. West Ham didn’t go and play in Scotland when they got relegated. Roux and his band of loonies should move their meetings to Lentegeur.
16 Aug 2012, 22:16 pm
@Lang Giel-36:
To be fair to Roux he inherited this nonsense from Van Rooyen’s time
But Hoskins has no excuse, he had lots of time to settle it
16 Aug 2012, 22:52 pm
@PissAnt-2: This is a joke, how can this be……
Unbelievable!!
You could not make this up even if you tried. On a positive note all SA times now have 2 games, which will be soft and which should hand them a bonus point….this could protect our players from the more stupid Super 15 format
16 Aug 2012, 23:18 pm
@JL1-38:
You can also start taking bets which team would be the first to put 100 past them
Would it be the Crusaders, Chiefs, Jake’s Brumbies, Bulls, Stormers or Sharks?
16 Aug 2012, 23:23 pm
@Tac, the leopards and pumas voted for the lions – you one-eyed idiot. They are part of the glru, and s15 partners. Your Bulls voted against the lions, which is not surprising.
16 Aug 2012, 23:38 pm
40. Lions owe those okes millions i,m sure there is no love lost. Hypothetically speaking, one could argue that it would be a blackadderesque cunning plan for the bulls to vote against the lions because they know that in all likelyhood they get first dibs at any halfdecent lions player…if there are any.
?..and what of mitchell now by the way.
16 Aug 2012, 23:44 pm
@Brigadier Van Zyl-41:
Tac said that there is only room for one Super team in Gauteng
Now it’s going to happen
16 Aug 2012, 23:52 pm
@Brig, exactly re Bulls having 1st dibs on the players. Bulls are the union to geographically gain the most and thats their vote. JohnM is a goner I think. Lions dont have the money and this dc was instigated in the exec.
16 Aug 2012, 23:56 pm
Btw, tac is and remains a blue infused inbred imbecile longing for the old days.
17 Aug 2012, 00:20 am
@Slappes-44: Articles like these just shows how little SA has grown in 20 years
You sound jealous?
17 Aug 2012, 00:41 am
There was also some talk of the Bulls and Lions merging.
The Bulls didn’t like this idea one bit.
Even if the rest of SA could see the clear benefits.
No wonder they voted to sink the Lions.
17 Aug 2012, 00:47 am
@Humphrey-46:
Wouldn’t have worked, just like the Cats didn’t work
Why must the Bulls give up half their gate takings to the Lions and accomodate their players to the detriment of their own?
17 Aug 2012, 00:50 am
I’d propose a draft system, like that in American football. That way the Lions get to keep ownership of their players for the play off game in 2013 and Super 15 in 2014, and their best players get valuable game time next year. It will also be good for SA rugby, strengthening all the SA teams by dispersing the best players from the 6th team that doesn’t make it, for a loan spell. In January each year they could do a televised “auction” where each of the other 5 teams is allowed to walk away with up to 3 players each from the 6th (and relegated team).
17 Aug 2012, 00:55 am
Would SARU really want to send the most poorly performed team in the S15, less probably some existing key players, with a lack of funds, into the Euro comp to compete with some of the worlds best funded teams? Would the Euro teams even contemplate travelling to SA to play some ‘easy beats’? I bet this is lots of words and very little action.
In reality, none of the 3 S15 nations can field 5 truly competitive teams today. NZ come closest in most years, but even there one of the teams (but not always the same one) tends to struggle. Suggesting that SA will suddenly be able to field 6 teams to be competitive in the worlds two hardest club comps is delusional.
17 Aug 2012, 01:06 am
@Humphrey-48:
Do you really think SARU has the ability to arrange it?
Look how long it took to (unsatisfactorilly) settel the Kings problem
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.