Saru’s Super Rugby solution not set in stone
23 Aug 2012
GARETH DUNCAN says while most of South Africa bemoaned Saru’s decision-making in accommodating the Southern Kings next season, many missed the fine print.
On Thursday last week, Saru announced that the Lions would be relegated from the South African Super Rugby conference in order to make way for the Kings. This was the decision voted by majority of the 14 unions at the annual general meeting, after no other suitable solution could be drawn up after months and months of negotiations and emergency meetings.
Saru also announced its promotion-relegation initiative, which will allow the Lions to compete for a Super Rugby place in 2014 as they’ll face next year’s last placed South African franchise in a play-off.
Many pundits see this as a lose-lose situation. And they are right.
Let’s look at the Kings.
It’s ridiculous to expect them to escape the wooden spoon in their debut season (well, at least in the South African conference which was the strongest group in this year’s competition). Super Rugby trends have proven that the newbies don’t do well during their early years. The Melbourne Rebels and Western Force finished last in their debut campaigns and still feature in the bottom half of the table every season, despite the odd upset victory. The Lions and Cheetahs haven’t fared much better since splitting from the Cats initiative in 2006.
The Kings will also struggle to recruit the necessary player base to be competitive at Super Rugby level. High-profile names will be hesitant to sign a one-year contract as the Eastern Cape franchise can’t guarantee tournament participation in 2014.
Saru’s answer to the media’s question of the Kings not being given enough time to carry out the necessary plans to ensure they will be competitive in 2013 was that the confirmation on their exclusion was made ‘several months ago’.
If this is so, the national administrators handled the situation poorly.
There were several stories that speculated the Kings were going to be dropped at the last minute. This including the report from the Weekend Argus in July that Saru offered the Eastern Cape franchise R40 million to stall their Super Rugby ambitions until 2016. If this was false, why didn’t Saru come out publicly and denounce these rumours?
This did the Kings no favours.
Kings boss Cheeky Watson has complained that they’re not happy with being given only one season to prove themselves. But Saru CEO Jurie Roux has revealed a way for them to extend their stay.
While most of the media focused on lamenting Saru’s decision, Roux confirmed that if the Kings received the majority vote to have an extended stay in Super Rugby at the next annual general meeting, and if this was passed by Saru’s executive council, then it would be granted.
Roux did, however, add that this is unlikely.
When it comes to the Lions, they’re in a very tricky situation.
While they’re in the Super Rugby wilderness, they’re also in trouble financially as reported on keo.co.za on Wednesday.
Saru confirmed that they are in negotiations with powers up north to see if the Lions could compete in any European competitions in 2013, but this is unlikely to happen as the European season starts in a couple of weeks.
However, Roux revealed a way for the Lions to feature in Super Rugby next season. He said the South African franchises are ‘businesses’ and they are allowed to run their ‘businesses’ as they’re pleased. So if the Lions were to amalgamate with another South African franchise, this would be allowed.
The only issue is, who would want to merge with a franchise in financial turmoil? The Lions have shot themselves in the foot (maybe even the chest) in the way they’ve run their business.
Saru’s Super Rugby solution is not set in stone. The Lions and Kings are likely to appeal its current terms, but the national union is unlikely to budge. If possible, the franchises should look at the fine print to solve their woes, more so the Kings.
Follow Gareth on Twitter
Follow SA Rugby magazine on Twitter
623 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 … 13 » Show All
23 Aug 2012, 15:22 pm
@Tacitus-294:
It is a SA Rugby mess, and Super Rugby is owned by SA Rugby, not the franchises.
SA Rugby will decide how the Lions fit into Super Rugby in future – and any decision in that manner will affect the Bulls, my contention from the start was that the Bulls would benefit more if the Lions simply become a feeder union and give up the mission to get up there again.
Lions being content with a single franchise in Gauteng will benefit the Bulls as they currently own one already.
Now for me to motivate this all over again will be repeat of the last 50 posts.
23 Aug 2012, 15:23 pm
@Tacitus-300: Maybe you won’t.
But I will.
23 Aug 2012, 15:24 pm
@willievz-302:
As will I.
23 Aug 2012, 15:24 pm
But now I have to be gone.
Falling behind with stuff here.
Chat later, thanks for the chat Tac
23 Aug 2012, 15:29 pm
@Transformation-288:
doesn’t it work for canterbury and nz rugby?
@PissAnt-293:
if the sharks had not ‘bought’ ep and border out of their franchise (feeder system) agreement, kept up the hush money payments and gave the odd player a run in super rugby then its wholly likely there would not have been a kings super rugby issue today, no?
23 Aug 2012, 15:29 pm
@PissAnt-301:
Hmm. This feels so familiar, somehow. I feel a sense of deja vu in that your arguments here follows a very similar trend to your defense of PDivvy over the last 4 years.
Basically, just totally ignoring the utterly irrefutable points made by the guy disagreeing with you, and focusing on the issues that you feel should be considered instead.
The gulf is so wide, that the issues which to the other guy is a dealbreaker (autonomy and maximum financial benefit to the Bulls), (P Divvy clearly not having a clue what’s going on on the field of play), are brushed off and the focus is instead shifted to wishy washy points such as:
(the nature of the franchise agreement – as if that is set in stone, and as if some type of shake up similar to what’s happening now with the Heineken Cup is not possible)
or (PDivvy having a keen love for the game and simply having articulation issues etc.)
We just see these things completely differently.
As far as the franchise story is concerned. Let’s see if it survives another 10 years.
A breakaway by some of the big unions can not be excluded from possibility, and I for one would be in favour of it if it broke the grip that the small unions have on the voting process in SARU.
23 Aug 2012, 15:30 pm
@willievz-299:
I agree. The franchises should be treated as the separate legal entities they are.
23 Aug 2012, 15:34 pm
Let’s say the Bulls, Sharks and WP form a breakaway competition with some rebel northern Hemisphere clubs in a few years time.
What’s the viewership of that competition going to be compared to what’s left of the Super Rugby tournament?
We need to break the backs of the smaller unions, so they can stop outvoting unions that have 10 times their budgets, and account for 20 times their combined supporter numbers.
The tail is wagging the dog in SA rugby.
23 Aug 2012, 15:36 pm
@Tacitus-300: Not necesarily, Stormers was a totally new concept a couple of years ago, but with the right marketing became popular very fast.
23 Aug 2012, 15:37 pm
@TooMuchRugby-309:
Hmm, and which geographical area do the Stormers represent? How many non WP supporters support the Stormers?
23 Aug 2012, 15:38 pm
@PissAnt-301:
remember, this all come full circle wrt sa rugby and the franchises.
sarugby might own super rugby but it in turn is a compromise of the complex political voting of 14 unions plus one president.
as much as sa rugby might want to do things to super rugby which would actually benefit the franchises and sa rugby as a whole, the franchises (dominant partners and their feeder unions) actually make sa rugby do things to super rugby which benefits themselves, but in a narrower sense.
23 Aug 2012, 15:38 pm
@willievz-299: Won’t help in the case of carnival ornaments like this Taccy fellow. He is at war mate, the Bulls his army, Wynie Strydom the drummer boy, and ‘Bulls at heart’ Heyneke Meyer his ‘de la rey’.
He be having it
23 Aug 2012, 15:44 pm
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-305: are canterbury the only union in their franchise?
23 Aug 2012, 15:48 pm
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-305:
I think that the Sharks only paid for the rights to host all the games at KP initially, as EP and Border were in financial straits and needed the money. EP and Border were also pissed off by the KZN Sharks union poaching their top franchise players and were joined by SWD, who also felt screwed by WP, in applying for the 5th franchise when it came available.
23 Aug 2012, 15:50 pm
Although I don’t appreciate Tac’s misguided Bulls superiority complex, I must agree that the franchise/regional system is not doing us any good, particularly because of the abuse of the system by unions such as the Bulls and Sharks and also as he pointed out because of the unbalanced voting power of the smaller unions.
If we can go back to every union functioning as a seperate entity, we may also be able to fabricate a much better Super Rugby conference system, where the CC can act as the local derby part of the Super Rugby and only the top teams go on to play against the ANZAC sides.
Then we may also be rid of monsters like the Stormers and bring back good old WP.
23 Aug 2012, 15:51 pm
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-305: i’m sure the fact that israel dagg & zac guilford are actually Hawkes Bay players will NEVER detract to any achievements attained by the Crusaders franchise.
the Highlanders franchise is predominantly made out of Southland and Otago players, the rivalry between these two in the ITM Cup and Ranfurly Shield is still healthy. any wins or achievements are not “claimed” for either one.
isolation has its drawbacks…
“Perhaps given their history of discrimination such a stupid system is simply second nature.” – jim kayes
23 Aug 2012, 15:52 pm
@Transformation-313:
no, but are the blue bulls the only union in theirs?
and thats my point.
for all intents and purposes they are.
23 Aug 2012, 15:54 pm
@Tacitus-308: the rich must get richer and the poor, poorer and silent
23 Aug 2012, 15:56 pm
@Tacitus-310: The Stormers are just as guilty in abusing the regional franchise system.
What I meant is that WP fans got used to Stormers, maybe the Blue Bulls fans would get used to be called the Red Bulls, or maybe that’s pushing it.
Actually just an academic exercise since I am not in favor of the regional franchise systems and advocate the unions as seperate entities.
Bring back WP
23 Aug 2012, 15:58 pm
@TooMuchRugby-319: WP of Stormers?? hulle speel ewe kak
23 Aug 2012, 15:58 pm
@The Sharks rugby pedigree is packaged as dog food-312:
Haha! Wynie Strydom is more like the Kings fool!
23 Aug 2012, 16:00 pm
@sharks_lover-320:
Dit maak seer, maar dis waar
23 Aug 2012, 16:00 pm
@TooMuchRugby-319:
Agree that the unions should return.
What’s wrong with a club based system like in Europe, where the top clubs participate in the Heineken cup?
Who said we need to be married to the a stupid franchise system that doesn’t fit the SA environment?
23 Aug 2012, 16:01 pm
@Transformation-316: I do not think you can use the clubs in NZ’s NPC and compare it with our situation. If these clubs are so rich in history and the rivalry so strong, why will there be more people at an Affies Grey game than at an NPC final?
23 Aug 2012, 16:02 pm
@TooMuchRugby-322: Sorry man!
23 Aug 2012, 16:02 pm
@sharks_lover-320: Actually it’s my opinion that their demise is because of the duality of being Stormers and WP and from what the one inherits fro mthe other in terms of playing style etc.
23 Aug 2012, 16:02 pm
@Transformation-316:
and what achievements do the highlanders franchise have to show for it itself, or its union partners for that matter?
23 Aug 2012, 16:05 pm
Aussies and Kiwis are laughing at all this and are happy that at least their game is not tainted by window dressing politics.
23 Aug 2012, 16:06 pm
@TooMuchRugby-326: Nope mate i think the problems at wp rugby lie far deeper
23 Aug 2012, 16:07 pm
@Tacitus-323: Yes and the Lions (Transvaal) were actually good enough to win the SuperR comp when they were just a union.
Creating regional teams did not strengthen our teams at all. In fact I think it weakened them.
23 Aug 2012, 16:07 pm
@greatest13gerber-328: They nearly said as much on Reunion
23 Aug 2012, 16:10 pm
@greatest13gerber-328: So true, we are the laughing stock of Aussies and Kiwi’s because of our poor management, but don’t let it bother you too much.
23 Aug 2012, 16:11 pm
So, if you have say just over 5.m rugby fans in SA then:
Maybe 4m support the Bulls, Sharks and Stormers.
Maybe another 800k support the Cheetahs and Lions.
Maybe 200k support the rest.
Yet the Big 5, despite having 90%+ of the fans, get just over 33% of the votes.
23 Aug 2012, 16:13 pm
@TooMuchRugby-330:
Heyneke is on record about 5 years ago stating that the continuity taken from an established Currie Cup team going into the S14 back is a big advantage.
23 Aug 2012, 16:14 pm
@Tacitus-323:
@PissAnt-303:
@willievz-302: But for the time being we must content with the regional system, and considering that I also think it would be best for Lions to act as feeder union for the Bulls
23 Aug 2012, 16:18 pm
@TooMuchRugby-335:
They can be a feeder union to everyone. Send their players out on loan to whoever wants them. The unions that make use of their players during the S15 then just pay the salaries of the players in question for that period.
In that way the Lions can get them all back for the Currie Cup, and be ready for the relegation play off next year.
No one wants to be lumped together with them officially. Let it be an unofficial arrangement.
23 Aug 2012, 16:18 pm
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-327:
You miss the point. The NZRU uses its franchises as a super regional trial for the ABs. Which is how we originally envisaged it. It’s just a more formalised version of our old Bok regional trials, with the added attraction of pitting the trial teams against our SANZAR partners instead of just each other.
23 Aug 2012, 16:19 pm
@sharks_lover-329: O Ja! The administrators of course, but let’s not even go there.
23 Aug 2012, 16:19 pm
@Tacitus-336: Fair enough
23 Aug 2012, 16:20 pm
@David-337:
Yes, but the expansion to the S15 has effectively meant that the Currie Cup is meaningless, hence the only way for traditional unions to remain relevant at the top level is to be in charge of their Super Rugby franchises.
The original intention was never to destroy the unions, which Super Rugby has now effectively done at Currie Cup level.
23 Aug 2012, 16:21 pm
@David-337: You sure make a lot of money from trials
23 Aug 2012, 16:21 pm
Let me ask you guys this…do we have enough talented black players in SA to make up this team what the our saru wants? I have been watching and looking with great anticipation for some oustanding players (besides Kolisi) to see how long and if any players are coming thru…they are!!! But not enough or in the numbers that we need then to be to make this happen, to be honest I think we are atleast 6-9 yrs away from an even equal number of good race players! Love the comments pity HM doesn’t read this blog..:
23 Aug 2012, 16:22 pm
@David-314:
so that’s a yes, the sharks are the cause of all this drama..?..
@TooMuchRugby-326:
no, their demise is due to the lack of mental strength.
23 Aug 2012, 16:22 pm
@Saffa down under-342:
Equal number. Hehehe.
23 Aug 2012, 16:24 pm
@greatest13gerber-328:
@sharks_lover-331:
SA Sports are still political football for governmt and it is sad. More and more Saffas will be turning out for England, Scotland, Australia etc
23 Aug 2012, 16:24 pm
@Tacitus-334:
So having an entirely Bulls, Sharks or WP Bok side will be better?
23 Aug 2012, 16:25 pm
@David-346:
Straw man argument.
23 Aug 2012, 16:27 pm
@Saffa down under-342:
answer to that has always being same. No
Not enough black players especially forwards who would walk into a S15 side on merit alone. majority playing in S15 not up to test standard as well.
23 Aug 2012, 16:29 pm
@David-314: I wonder if the Lions were pissed by the Stormers buying all their players ? Maybe if they had the continuity coming from a few years ago when the Stormers opened a ‘store account’ at the Lions – they wouldn’t have finished last this year ?
I think we have done this a few times before, but would you like to hear the long list of Lions players poached by WP/Stormers ? I will be happy to oblige.
23 Aug 2012, 16:29 pm
@David-346: Well, actually……………a full strength WP, Sharks or Bulls side might give the Boks a go.
But of course it could never be tested… if one is full strength, the other by design cannot be.
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 … 13 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.