Treat Kings like royalty
23 Feb 2010
The Eastern and Southern Cape has been let down by Saru and its promises, writes Keo in Business Day Sport Monthly.
The ace in the South African 2011 Super 15 pack has to be the King of Spades. Currently there are too many jokers and there is way too much bluffing from the game’s administration. It has to stop. South African rugby cannot afford a repeat of the Southern Spears, in which the Eastern and Southern Cape were promised a Super Rugby franchise in exchange for a government-backed 2011 World Cup bid.
When the bid to host the 2011 World Cup failed, so did the Southern Spears. The South African Rugby Union (Saru) spent R6 million to launch the Spears and another R6 million to close it down. Outside of the outrageous financial waste was the more telling indictment that the game’s governors were not prepared to invest in the future of this country’s rugby and were more interested in honouring a fractured past.
The Lions and Cheetahs, as individual franchises, cannot survive in an expanded Super 15 that has to find a home for the Eastern and Southern Cape. The two altitude-based franchises simply have to accept that if they are to have a future in Super Rugby it has to be as one entity called the Cats.
We’ve been there before and it was a disaster, but that is because both provincial unions always wanted independence in Super Rugby. Well, the reality is they can’t have it. Not if the game is to be advanced through more than the soft-sand promises that sunk the Spears and are sinking the Kings.
It can’t be allowed to happen again. When Saru president Regan Hoskins made such a fanfare about the Kings a year ago it coincided with Saru’s World Cup bid for the 2015 and 2019 World Cups. To be successful, the government had to endorse the bid and provide financial guarantees. Those at the Saru head table went begging and they got the financial support in return for genuine rugby investment in the Eastern and Southern Cape. Everyone applauded. Progress, finally.
The Kings made their debut on 16 June 2009 against the British & Irish Lions and the occasion was sold as the start of South African rugby’s promise of inclusivity to a region renowned as the stronghold of ethnic black rugby.
What has followed has been crass and embarrassing. The World Cup bid, for whatever reason, failed. Saru’s Hoskins and deputy president Mark Alexander were crushed as they had boldly declared South Africa could never miss out on 2015 and 2019. That’s the embarrassing bit. The crassness is the way the Kings have conveniently been shelved as Saru’s task team supposedly searches for solutions to the issue of transformation and growth in the Eastern and Southern Cape.
At the time, in the pages of Business Day Sport Monthly nearly a year ago, the caution was that it was all a sham and that an Eastern Cape-boosted Super 15, from a South African perspective, was more a Super Con in lulling the government into a World Cup guarantee. Hoskins denied it vehemently, but the lack of progress in finalising the Kings as a Super 15 franchise post the failed World Cup bid is more telling than any Hoskins or similar Saru-type denials.
The Australian Rugby Union and Australia’s recently added fifth Super Rugby team, the Melbourne Rebels, have shown up the lack of intent within Saru when it comes to the Kings.
The Rebels, who will play in next season’s competition, secured 1999 World Cup-winning coach Rod Macqueen, an influential CEO and massive sponsorship. The Australian Rugby Union have also allowed for 10 foreigners in the initial squad, to ensure the Rebels are competitive and an attraction to locals.
The same should have been done with the Kings. By now the Kings’ participation in the 2011 Super 15 should have been guaranteed and the fact that it isn’t is the most damning example of what is still wrong with the game in this country.
Government attacks on rugby always focus on black and coloured representation in the Springbok squad, when the target should be Super Rugby and Currie Cup structures. If there were enough playing opportunities across the country, colour would never be an issue at national level and we would never have to worry about non-merit selections. The best would play and the national team would always be a finishing school, and not the learning school it was on the 2009 end-of-year-tour.
It is unacceptable that 15 years into professional rugby there is not a Super Rugby franchise in the Eastern Cape. It is a bit like the endorsing of the King Protea as the national sporting symbol. It took rugby 14 years to accommodate the King Protea alongside the Springbok, and when it happened nobody blinked. The world did not end, the Springboks were not suddenly known as the Proteas and players did not refuse to wear the jersey because of the King Protea. In fact, players said they would never clutch at one over the other when singing the national anthem as both symbols had to be respected. It is the same with the evolution of South Africa’s Super Rugby geographics. The bigger picture has to be respected and not the self-serving agenda within Saru or among the respective Lions and Cheetahs franchises.
Government officials who endorsed South Africa’s World Cup bid are as culpable as those rugby administrators who have again stalled on the Kings. Why has government’s focus not been on forcing the hand of Saru? Disturbingly, it is the only way rugby’s bosses will play the King of Spades. We’ve seen too much evidence in the past 15 years to suggest otherwise. Rugby sadly always has to be forced into change. Never has any post-isolation administration been a step ahead of the transformation game.
Transformation should never be measured in black playing numbers, as has been the case for the past 15 years. On the Springbok 2009 end-of-year tour a non-white coach picked a lot of non-white players as midweek Springboks to get the politicians off his back. It was as blatant a window dress as there has been in the history of South African rugby.
Each time you think there has been progress in South African rugby, administrators fail themselves and the game they purport to serve. It can’t be tolerated anymore.
Eastern Province president Cheeky Watson wants answers from the government, from Saru and from all those who made promises that the Kings would be more than a once-off trade-off. Watson is right to demand answers. He, like anyone involved in the Kings, is being taken for a fool.
Next year is World Cup year and one in which the national team needs calm in the national administration. If the Kings don’t come to fruition it won’t happen. Government will then use World Cup participation and the Springboks to threaten rugby’s bosses. There will be the customary panic and knee-jerk reaction. The hysteria will dominate the news and outsiders will again be numbed at yet another rugby implosion.
There will be a threat of taking away passports. There will be a demand of a certain number of black players and there will be the continued bluff that the game is reflective of all South Africans. It will be awful and even more awful is that is can so easily be avoided if those running the game show grit to match their greed.
The Lions and Cheetahs, legally and commercially, can all make a winning case to justify continued independence in Super Rugby. Neither can make a rugby case based on results as they have been the duffers of the tournament, but when, oh when, will South African rugby’s elected custodians see that the decision of the Kings has nothing to do with commerce or results?
In the context of where we are as a nation and where we need to go, the Kings have to be treated like potential royalty and not like a Neverland monarchy.
Their participation in next year’s Super 15 should not even be a debate. That it is rightly questions the integrity of those running the game, and that is why change has to be forced, because doing the right thing somehow never comes instinctively to those entrusted with securing the future of rugby in this country.
– Business Day Sport Monthly is distributed FREE with Business Day newspaper on the second last Friday of each month
208 Comments
23 Feb 2010, 07:10 am
For once i agree with Keo. Flip but this article is spot on. Saru are not interested in growing the game in the Eastern Cape, even an idiot like grant10 can see that!!
23 Feb 2010, 07:18 am
The usual hogwash. Keo does not deny that the Cats were a disaster for the Lions and Cheetahs.
Destroying the Cheetahs would be a disaster for SA rugby as they produce so many of our up and coming new players.
23 Feb 2010, 07:33 am
Okaaay, Am I misinterpreting or is Keo advocating the Lions and Cheetahs unite, forming the Cats and the Kings coming into the S15, loosely modeled on the Rebels?
Sounds good to me
Man how good would the Cats be… woohoo.
23 Feb 2010, 07:35 am
Aaaaaag ek stem nie saam nie….
I don’t know who is lying where…. all i see is the game…
Sa actually should only have 4 teams in the S14 – not the current 5. Forget the whole thing of not exposing enough players at that level. Currently they are getting exposed as it is ….
Give EP R10mil and let them develop in the CC. Lets see what they do with the so called “biggest player base in SA”. Why must they develop at S14 level.
I read all these post regarding the Bulls team that were bad 15 years ago and they so on ……. at nausea….. EP hasn’t been good since Elton John came out of the closed…….
NAw … this is politics and has little to do with rugby… imo…
Politics, politics politics…….
And i we all learned at varsity…
there are things that are economically not possible put politically viable…. and visa verse….
i donno why i reply to this…..
Hope my spell checker works!
23 Feb 2010, 07:40 am
True about SARU’s con, but so yesterday’s backpages. Move on. SARU had the opportunity to not settle for just 15 but a Super 16 which could have included the Kings and made the Aussies and the Eastern Cape happy.
23 Feb 2010, 07:41 am
YAWN
23 Feb 2010, 07:44 am
it seems like i pre-empted keo with my post yesterday. All these “rugby kenners” do not want to see rugby accessible to all and sundry. If john o’neill can start a franchise from nothing in melbourne, why all the dilly-dallying when it comes to south africans/oregan hoskins?
“destroying the cheetahs would be a disaster for sa rugby”, how? When all the players that they supposedly produce would play in the cats franchise or do what they do now, go to durban.
23 Feb 2010, 07:47 am
Oh please KEO, build your bridge man! Ons Southern Kings can prove they can keep there players and once they take part in the currie cup and show they are competitive then they can play in super rugby. Stop forcing an issue, u wana know why they always fail? Coz they want it NOW and dont have the patience to wait for a building process. Stop being so one-track minded. All our provinces had to go through processes and so do they, they arent children and the government is not their care takers. It pathetic and so is you article KEO!
23 Feb 2010, 07:48 am
Sorry for the spelling, its early
23 Feb 2010, 07:54 am
I have always thought the untapped talent in SA is so wasted. I am not a racist and I certainly do not want my post to be viewed as such.
The last couple of years we are seeing more POCs (your Saffa label) and by god there is talent there. One doesn’t need a degree in Mathematics to work it out. The weight of numbers is commanding.
I am not for one moment suggesting that everyone is capable of S15 and Test level rugby but if you don’t run that geo study, how on earth can resources be tapped. Exploration is expensive and time consuming but the rewards/exports are well worth the investment.
Can remember years ago cricketer, now commentator, Tony Greig commented on the untapped possibilities… Now if the same mentality can filter through Rugby.
Footnote: I am quite the Greenie, so don’t give me stick about using exploration as my metaphor, especially when Keo is ripping up the ‘politically correct’ with his card metaphor.
23 Feb 2010, 07:55 am
@wpw: 1
i am all fought out.
no mas….you win…idiot i am.
and i fully support that the bottom finishing saffa franchise be relegated annually from the super 15….just this idiots point of view.
23 Feb 2010, 07:56 am
@Transformation: # 7
All these “rugby kenners” do not want to see rugby accessible to all and sundry.
I for one have no clue regarding what these kenners see or think (as you mention they do) but if i may ask….. are they not playing rugby now in that area, so surely they are getting exposure/accessibility (groot woord – hope spell checker works) ?
But then again why i am even taking time to debate this is pointless.
imo
23 Feb 2010, 07:58 am
Why must the Lions and Cheetahs now suffer due the incompetence of SARU???
If SARU was really committed to the Kings they would have fought the Aussies on the Rebels instead off rolling over…
I agree with the sentiment that rugby in the EC needs to be developed, it’s long overdue.
The best idea would be to add the Kings to the CC next year and let them build a team that can at least be competitive in Super rugby…
23 Feb 2010, 08:04 am
off the subject completely….but it is being reported on the radio that Sharks are playing Ruan at 9 and Goode at 10 against Saders
23 Feb 2010, 08:10 am
@grant10: Ja, heard it as well…
Lekka stupid…
Ruan, come to the Lions boet, you will be our first choice flyhalf…
23 Feb 2010, 08:13 am
@grant10: Ruan is a 9. Not a bad option, then bring on Kocky and shift Ruan to 10 through the match. Easing Goode in… Sink or swim buddy.
23 Feb 2010, 08:17 am
I fully support STAAL and KAPPER on this one.
Stop the politics and lets just play rugby!
23 Feb 2010, 08:18 am
By my estimation, a Cats team would have far more Cheetahs players than Lions.
15. Riaan Viljoen
14. Lionel Mapoe
13. Corne Uys
12. Meyer Bosman
11. Jongi Nokwe
10. Burton Francis
9. Sarel Pretorius
8. Ashley Johnson / Frans Viljoen
7. Juan Smith
6. Heinrich Brussouw
5. David de Villiers
4. Nico Breedt
3. WP Nel
2. Adriaan Strauss
1. Heinke vd Merwe / Wian du Preez
23 Feb 2010, 08:20 am
Agree WRT the Southern Kings… SARU, government, everyone should get behind the effort to get them up and running…
don’t agree about the Cats… that concept was well and truly skinned in their last incarnation…
If two tribes have to merge it should be the Bulls and Lions. Geographically it makes more sense…
Or just go for the round-robin qualification… letting the top teams go through and the one that doesn’t make it has to try again next year… Based on the result against the BILs the Kings should qualify…
More important is how the S15 is gonna see rugby spectatorship in SA drop alarmingly…
KEO maybe you could get onto Andy Marinos and ask where and how they did this ‘research’ that shows SA supporters prefer local derbies and not international matches…
I reckon the attendances at local games in the S15 are going to drop alarmingly until the the international rounds are reached…
what was the basis of the SANZAR decision? A thumbsuck or NZ and SA propping up Aussie rugby…?
23 Feb 2010, 08:24 am
Yesterday I was asked why I am not participating in a debate surrounding the upcoming elections of the new SA Rugby president and his deputy.
My answer was simple.
Facts and figures mean little, logic even less, and accountability is about as far removed from reality as the X-men when it comes to rugby and rugby administration in this country.
There is none so blind as those who do not want to see.
23 Feb 2010, 08:25 am
@ufo: Eish man, the trade off was SARU got a bigger slice of Ruperts Au$$ie dollars., everyone knows that.
23 Feb 2010, 08:28 am
off subject again….but jaco vd westhuisen also back home at bulls now….
23 Feb 2010, 08:47 am
@RugbyRulz:
If memory serves me… SARU actually got less out of this deal…
PA may not be participating…
but he knows the facts better than me here…
PA…???
23 Feb 2010, 08:49 am
if the Cheetahs and the Lions form the Cats again, it also gives them a better shot
23 Feb 2010, 08:51 am
@ufo: wasnt the trade off, for both Aussie and SA, to actually have 2 teams progress to the finals
23 Feb 2010, 08:53 am
@grant10: Sharks are in trouble then!
23 Feb 2010, 08:53 am
i expect the blogger TonyM to drop in at any point now..
23 Feb 2010, 08:55 am
@poppa69:
the way things are going we’re not gonna need any trade-off there…
but seriously…
speaking for myself and most of my mates… we’d far rather watch the Stormers playing overseas sides… the local sides we can always watch in the CC…
of course I like to watch the Stormers play… period… but if budgets are tight I’d rather spend mine on watching the NZ/Aus teams play the Stormers…
I just think this hasn’t been fully thought through… and the only reason for that can be the agendas being served…
23 Feb 2010, 08:55 am
@ufo: If memory serves me SARU indeed got the larger share of the pie due to TV audience and travel dispensation and rightly so. They had the option to push for the 6th franchise but the funding would have to come from their allotment. We all know how that went.
23 Feb 2010, 08:55 am
@ufo:
Yes they got less with Aus and NZ now getting more of the SANZAR S14 pie.
SARU traded this off or motivated it by saying they now controlled all of the CC’s television rights which they sold to SS till 2015 if memory serves.
As far as local derbies and their popularity goes – they got that from average attendance figures over the last couple of years.
But the local derbies was also a point raised and motivated (supported) specifically by Aus.
No matter which way one looks at this, Aus got the best possible deal from all this.
Also do not forget, apart from ******** SA rugby in the SANZAR deal Aus is also a well known supporter of Japanese rugby who would have supported the hosting of WC 2019 which of course, SA lost out on…
23 Feb 2010, 08:57 am
If the eventual inclusion of the Spears into the super 15 is based purely on a rugby decision then I do support it. Plenty of talent in the Eastern Cape.
However, if it is a politically driven decision with politicians trying to score points then I am against it.
Would be good to have a strong union down there. It is the only way black rugby players can be given chance to fully grow.
23 Feb 2010, 08:58 am
Keo first you say this
The Lions and Cheetahs, as individual franchises, cannot survive in an expanded Super 15 that has to find a home for the Eastern and Southern Cape.
Then you say this
The Lions and Cheetahs, legally and commercially, can all make a winning case to justify continued independence in Super Rugby.
Now I am not going to call you a poor writer for
fear of reprisal but please show some consistency.
23 Feb 2010, 09:00 am
@poppa69: Yep the Aussies wanted a 6 team finals series. The Saffas wanted 2 from each country to contest the finals. The Aussies and Kiwis thought merit (top 6 finishers) appropriate… hence trade off = Saffa option.
Kiwis are the only nation that actually gave ground on that option… they realistically could, field 3 in the top 6.
23 Feb 2010, 09:01 am
Lions,cheetahs,sharks and kings should have playoffs and whoever ends up bottom of the log goes back to where they came from
23 Feb 2010, 09:05 am
Thanks PA….
so… in shorthand…
NZ and SA propping up Aussie rugby… and not so much research…
checking attendance figures is one thing… but the Sharks had 20 000 empty seats for the CC semi against the Cheetahs…???? How are we gonna fill stadiums for mere round-robin games…???
but my point is Andy Marinos said on BootsnAll that extensive research amongst supporters indicted they preffered watching local derbies to foreign teams… WTF….????
I would like someone with the connections to ask him where they did that research… and can we have a look at it… and what was their sample number… etc etc etc…
it P’s me off when any organisation just does something and then tries to say that it is based on market research because you never know a single person who gets asked their opinion…
there are several rugby sites they could’ve had polls etc to determine what rugby supporters really wanted…
23 Feb 2010, 09:06 am
@ufo: spot on on both accounts …
I too love watching the uncertainty of playing foreign teams.. I mean, when my blues are needing a bonus point win, then Im usually hoping theyre playing the Reds or the Lions lol
seriously though, its what makes the tournament so unique..
23 Feb 2010, 09:06 am
@PissAnt: Yep Australia is committed to grow the game in Asia / Oceana region. The future of rugby is not in SANZAR it is in the under-developed (rugby thinking) zone. Japan and the Americas are the targets.
23 Feb 2010, 09:08 am
ploos where is the talent? We see Eastern Cape clubs teams getting hammered at the club champs…we see NMMMU getting hammered in the Varsity cup etc … I’m from PE and i want us to have super rugby .. but first we’ll have to get back some overseas players and a few local okes …
Also ons kannie anyway nie k@kker doen as die Lions nie
23 Feb 2010, 09:10 am
@ufo:
Yes, just from the top of my head this is what Aus got out of the deal:
* Bigger slice of Super rugby pie television rights deal.
* 5th Super rugby team
* A domestic competition (given the conference setup under which Super rugby will work) which they currently do not have and did try to establish but failed dismally in doing so – all funded under the SANZAR and Super rugby banner.
* A wider domestic rugby base which they could not have established without Super rugby (Melbourne Rebels) given what union competes with in this region.
* An automatic increase in their player base due to the extra team.
Those are just a couple of logical things.
Now I can ask you or anyone to tell me what SA got out of the Super rugby expansion…
As for SA Rugby’s market research…
I’d be surprised if they actually went out the boardroom in the president’s council meeting to do actual research.
23 Feb 2010, 09:11 am
@RugbyRulz:
Dude don’t for one second think Aus is not into ‘developing’ rugby in Asia if they do not benefit from this directly…
If Aus is such a fan of developing rugby in emerging nations why were they so opposed to include Argies in Super rugby and 3N rugby?
23 Feb 2010, 09:11 am
I think the Lions and the Bulls should combine. Call them the Golden Bulls!
23 Feb 2010, 09:16 am
@PissAnt:
PA… that’s pretty much how I see it too…
I’m asking the same question…
What did we get out of the S15 expansion…???
I certainly can’t see it…
Had the Kings emerged officially and irrevocably it would’ve been worth it… IMO…
but SA rugby has not taken one forward step with the S15…
23 Feb 2010, 09:17 am
@Storm outta hell: You just the Loser of the Sharks Lions can play the Kings in a play off.
23 Feb 2010, 09:27 am
@Fat_Cat: Plenty of talent at school level.
23 Feb 2010, 09:28 am
“The Lions and Cheetahs, legally and commercially, can all make a winning case to justify continued independence in Super Rugby. Neither can make a rugby case based on results as they have been the duffers of the tournament”
duffers? lanugauge Keo, language!
Now the Lions and the Cheetahs are only in year 4 (four) of Super rugby compared to year 14 of the Bull and Sharks and year 13 of the Stormers. I would say we are still infants and require time to grow.
btw why no expose on the Costal Sharks? you know that franchise that comprised the union on the Sharks and the EC? As I recall they were one until those arrogant suits in Natal decided to buy out the EC from Super rugby. Why not have them join again? It will resolve the Sharks current lack of depth and it will be an sos to the EC.
23 Feb 2010, 09:28 am
Make the Lions part of the Bulls, give the fifth franchise to PE.
23 Feb 2010, 09:30 am
actually year 5.
23 Feb 2010, 09:31 am
@Fat_Cat: Nee julle kannie kxkker as die lions doen nie. All I said was with a purely rugby decision comes the development of young players.
I am also not naive and plain stupid to believe that a puely rugby decision will be made.
Its time the public starts to vote for rugby administrators.
23 Feb 2010, 09:32 am
@PissAnt: I do not think for one moment there is not a ROI (return on investment). Expanding into Japan and onto the Americas will be beneficial in so many ways.
For years Australia and New Zealand have contested our Bledesloe and it has funded out respective countries very nicely.
The two countries bandied about the concept of a WCup, the IRB told them to run along and see how far the concept flies… We all know how that went.
The Anzacs then expanded their thinking and SANZAR became a reality.
Geez mate, this is a game that could have gone the way off the dodo… It is growing, albeit small steps, but growing.
Now if NZ & Aus take it to Japan (Bledesloe) and eventually America. I reckon we can honestly say, “We have done our bit”
OK… Lets take the above on board and try it with the Kings.
23 Feb 2010, 09:33 am
@PissAnt: rugbyrulz is a lass..
23 Feb 2010, 09:33 am
@poppa69: @ 36
exactly… S14 is unique and tough and great for Southern Hemisphere rugby seeing how a large number of our players stack up against international competition…
I can’t see how the S15 will be good for SA or NZ at all…
23 Feb 2010, 09:35 am
@Fat_Cat:
Our clubs and the NMMU are getting hammered for one simple, all our best young players are playing in other provinces. Here are a few players who left the Eastern Cape after playing Craven Week for Border or EP.
Dewald Potgieter
Ryan Kankowski
Ross Geldenhuys
Bandise Maku
Mpho Mbiyozo
Trompie Nontshinga
Tiger Bax
Rudi Mathee
Akhona Ndungane
Odwa Ndungane
Lwazi Mvovo
Bjorn Basson
Ryno Gerber
23 Feb 2010, 09:36 am
@Transformation:
Thanks for the cue TRANSFORMATION……………..
The facts that Keo has failed to recognise are pure and simple and strike to the heart of the SA Rugby Constitution, old and the new one of November 2009, which requires SA Rugby to honour and execute all legal and binding agreements entered into by it.
1. The Southern Kings are purely an exhibition side created as a decoy for government, to get their R500m guarantee for the Rugby World Cup bid – The British & Irish Lions game on the 16th June did that
2. There is not a single shred of paper of a SA Rugby Presidents Council Resolution giving the Southern Kings any tournament fixture or Super Rugby status – NOTHING
3. The Southern Kings still do not have a shareholders agreement amongst Border EP & SWD for a Southern Kings super rugby franchise
Here is the bitter irony.
1. The Southern Spears have a unanimous Presidents Council Resolution that has been minuted and approved no less than 4 Presidents Council meetings with additional sanction and approval by the SA Rugby Board
2. The Southern Spears have a High Court order of the 4th August 2006 declaring they have a legal and binding agreement
3. The Southern Spears have more rights and legal standing than the Southern Kings
The point in all of this, and Keo is out by about R50m as to what it has cost SA Rugby so far, is that this remains still an unresolved issue under the 4 year tenure of Hoskins, whose quarterly pledges that the Eastern Cape is a priority and we will do this and we will do that and they can play the Argies here and Japan there stands for diddley squat.
As long as the Eastern Cape are left out of the Super Rugby mix and international rugby tournaments it will remain a festering cancer created by the inept leadership who assume the stance that if they ignore it it will go away.
This current administrations stance is to seek out conflict rather than resolve matters.
Hoskins could have fixed this on the 29th March 2006 – he didn’t then and he never will.
23 Feb 2010, 09:38 am
@RugbyRulz:
Dude(ette)
I am not sure I would call what is currently happening in rugby growth – well now compared to what it could be or should be in anycase.
I could bore you with specifics on how rugby’s elite (8 participating countries: SANZAR, home union & France) deliberately excluded the other (over 100 member unions) of the IRB over the last 80 years.
But change is at least happening it seems.
23 Feb 2010, 09:39 am
@RugbyRulz: @ 49
Agree with you on America…
have stated many times here that if the IRB really wants to grow rugby internationally… the next world cup (2015) needs to go to the USA… have each qualifying country ‘adopted’ by a State and get everyone involved in the comp…
23 Feb 2010, 09:41 am
@ufo:
Some time ago I made a point and wrote something where I believed the real sleeping giants of world rugby to be Argentina…
23 Feb 2010, 09:42 am
@ufo:
America I fear will be in a similar position to Australia.
Rugby union will have to compete commercially with established and very popular sports like NBA, NFL, Baseball, NHL, and some others.
Not easy.
23 Feb 2010, 09:42 am
Pissant
I have to bring something to your attention.
It’s about that old drum you’ve been beating for some time now. Namely that NZ are supposedly so far ahead of SA, and get so much national advantage out of contracting their players centrally and then dishing them out to the Super 14 franchises on an equitable basis.
Well, lo and behold, I happened to catch a bit of that Reunion rugby show in NZ the other night, and what were they discussing?
Nothing less than the fact that the NZ system of centrally contracting players is archaic, and that the way of professional sport is to go the route of the South Africans, which is to let the franchises contract the players directly!
According to them, it gives the Super 14 franchises a massive advantage to be able to have full control over your contracting matters.
I guess we aren’t so stupid after all, hey?
What say you now, Mr. “Socialist Dictator Who Wishes To Reduce The Power Of The Big 5 Unions At All Costs And Centralize All Power Under The Incompetent And Polictically Driven SARU Management?”
23 Feb 2010, 09:46 am
@PissAnt: Change is certainly happening. We can moan amongst ourselves (SANZAR) but we certainly have to stick together.
The Argies will come into the Tri Nations and eventually, hopefully Japan and the Americas. It may take another 5-20 years… IRB have ignored us for over 80 years, so what’s the rush?
23 Feb 2010, 09:46 am
@Tacitus:
I say – just look at NZ’s success as a rugby nation under their current setup…
They would be stupid to change it.
And they are probably bringing this up now because of a thing all SH countries are fearing – losing players to NH unions.
I wont be surprised if they mentioned and suggested that NZRU should also re-look at the current conditions and restrictions on overseas based players?
Did they perhaps mention that?
23 Feb 2010, 09:47 am
@PissAnt:
I agree PA they have huge potential… and their inclusion in a 4N will propel them forwards no doubt…
also think if the USA with their NFL/AFL-and-NBA-type players start getting into rugby instead of those sports they’d have a team that would take some stopping… and with the mighty dollar and US marketing/TV… rugby would see huge growth…
just my opinion of course… just pie in the sky at the moment…
23 Feb 2010, 09:49 am
@mxhosa: lionel cronje
sibusiso sithole
luke watson
siya kolisi
kaunda ntunja
dewalt potgieter
23 Feb 2010, 09:49 am
@Tacitus:
And wouldn’t you rather associate the word ‘Dictator’ to someone, or something, that excludes the right of those around him or them to compete and operate on equal terms or level playing field?
I suppose you support nationalisation because SA rugby is actually run similarly. Excluding participation.
23 Feb 2010, 09:50 am
@ufo:
Problem is the popularity of the sport – not who competes in it.
You have to sell the product of union to commercially compete against the other, already popular sports.
23 Feb 2010, 09:50 am
@PissAnt:
No, I didn’t catch anything relating to overseas players, but the bit I saw, that friendly looking, Squirrel-resembling presenter of theirs (can’t remember his name) was chatting to Pat Lam – coach of the Blues, I think, about how professional sports clubs are run like businesses, with full control of their contracting matters (e.g. the Bulls, Sharks etc.), and that is surely the way that professional sport has to go. (Think of Man Utd, Arsenal and so forth).
Needless to say, Pat Lam fully agreed.
23 Feb 2010, 09:52 am
@Tacitus: Tac, horses for courses. In Australia the players are centrally contracted via the ARU… this scuppers the BS that England has had to endure re touring. All Aussies are available to tour regardless of club allegiance. I am not saying the English system is wrong as it has been in place far longer than we have. Only know we don’t have issues come touring availability.
NZ has a draft system that pools the extra players; perhaps they are looking to get rid of that.
23 Feb 2010, 09:52 am
@Tacitus: 58
The biggest socialist is Keo himself, he that want’s to destroy the Lions and Cheetahs (again) by having them join? The fact is that it was a failed concept and is was proven a failure over 10 years. I am just glad that TomyM (53) has exposed Keo’s poor writing once and for all … hell how can the Kings play super rugby when they do not even exist.
23 Feb 2010, 09:52 am
@PissAnt:
Dictator = central control of resources.
23 Feb 2010, 09:52 am
@mxhosa: Agree.
23 Feb 2010, 09:53 am
@Tacitus:
Oh no then we fully agree.
But please take note of one very important thing you mentioned in there – professional sports clubs are run like businesses.
The day that happens the rest will take care of itself.
23 Feb 2010, 09:53 am
@RugbyRulz:
The professional way is having totally independent clubs, like in the UK. And SA is the closest to that in the Southern Hemishpere.
23 Feb 2010, 09:54 am
@PissAnt:
Agree with you…
That’s why I’m suggesting taking the world cup to the US and having each team adopted by a State…
to grow the popularity of the sport there…
sure it’s not gonna take over… but it doesn’t have to, to become a powerhouse internationally…
23 Feb 2010, 09:55 am
@Tacitus:
Your definition of dictator:
Which is what the ‘big 5′ is doing and exactly my point for many years now.
23 Feb 2010, 09:55 am
@PissAnt:
Do we fully agree? I don’t think so.
You want to reduce the power of the Bulls over their own players, and place it in the hands of a National Director of Rugby.
Sorry, that doesn’t sit well with me.
23 Feb 2010, 09:55 am
@PissAnt: 57
Even if 5% of the American population plays rugby that will leave them with more rugby players than NZ. Look at thier soccer league, already bigger than most European leagues in term of numbers.
23 Feb 2010, 09:57 am
Its been a while since I have agreed with you, this article reminds me of back in 2003/4 when you set up this website, then, it was “The Real Independent look at SA Rugby”
23 Feb 2010, 09:58 am
@Tacitus:
I want rugby to run as self-sufficient professional businesses.
Where power is not decided and divided amongst those with historical prejudice but where decisions are made and based on pure and simple profitability and commercial viability of a product and its resources.
That is it, pure and simple.
The rest will fall into place automatically after that.
23 Feb 2010, 09:58 am
@PissAnt:
No, in a socialist dictatorship resources are centrally controlled and then “equitably distributed” to everyone, on some basis determined by the dictator. THAT is what you want.
In a free market, you have HAVES and HAVE NOTS. That is what I want. Because there is only X amount of resources (players) to go around. And it is not enough to make every team a superclub.
Therefore, to achieve the success that the Bulls have achieved, you by default have to take resources from the HAVE NOTS.
That is the way of business.
23 Feb 2010, 09:59 am
@RedLion:
But where does a sport like soccer (most participated sport worldwide) rate commercially in America and how does it compare to the other professional sports?
23 Feb 2010, 10:01 am
@Tacitus: Yep I am aware of the independence of both English and South African clubs. Situation here is not the same. We are a small sport in a relatively small nation. In NZ their national sport in a smaller nation. Now lets look at England and South Africa… hmm the same as Aus and NZ., only difference is independence and our Governments have absolutely no control over our sport.
23 Feb 2010, 10:03 am
@Tacitus: LMAO Tac… Man I am a capitalist through and through but I am also a philanthropist. Eish some would say that is my liberal side.
23 Feb 2010, 10:03 am
@Tacitus: Agree.
23 Feb 2010, 10:05 am
@RugbyRulz:
And there you have come to the heart of it. The more you centralise control over rugby in SA, the more influence government will have over it.
Conversely, the more you move in the direction of private clubs, the less government can interfere. Or at least, the more you can resist government interference.
As an example, government can decide to take away the Springbok emblem. But because the Bulls own their trademarks, they cannot touch the Bulls logos, at least not without a massive court case which they probably won’t have the stomach for.
Now, if the Bulls were a purely private club, like Man Utd for examle, they would be absolutely free to operate on their own.
THAT is what I want.
23 Feb 2010, 10:07 am
@Tacitus:
Not enough resources to go around?
Under which rock have you been sleeping Tac?
There is more than enough resources to go around in SA but the sad reality is we are losing too much of those resources quite simply because a socialist dictarship already exists with the current setup in SA rugby where the Big 5 calls the shots and no-one else has much of a say any which way!
We have enough resources to build 10 Superclubs but because of the socialist dictatorship laws that currently exists the majority of our rugby resources are excluded from the elite list in this country.
Simply look at the current voting processes in SA Rugby and who has the most say and sway!!!
Strip all that down, create a free and open market – and see this game take off.
I have asked many times before – you directly – what is it about the SEC that makes people so pissed scared and defensive whenever a case is made for them to participate equally in the business of rugby???
Are the guys actually scared the socialists will be shown up for their utter ineptness and amateurism when it comes to running the game truly professionally where a lowly, SEC or any other small union in Limpopo ot Northern KZN actually gets great financial backing and build themselves up as a successful business and effectively union or franchise?
You are happy currently with your Bulls, and the Lions are with their team and WP with theirs etc etc etc – because YOU are holding all the aces buddy.
Let’s level the playing fields and those who end up on top – will deserve to be on top.
23 Feb 2010, 10:09 am
@Tacitus: As I said before horses for courses. In SA central control is via government interference, in Australia the control is via the Australian Rugby Union; not the Australian Government. It is not the same, far from it. The ARU is a body unto itself.
23 Feb 2010, 10:09 am
@PissAnt: it ranks as probably no 6 or 7 in terms of popularity but still comercially viable. Even if rugby was ranked at no. 8 it would be in a better state than Argie rugby.
@Tacitus: it is more than the haves and the have nots. The EC has no commercial foundation to build on and as such will struggle commercially. Unfortunatley for them the economic hub is Gauteng and the pie in Gauteng is big enough for 2 to share.
23 Feb 2010, 10:11 am
And I think you have my suggestion of a national director of rugby totally screwed up.
The National DOR will be responsibly to oversee and manage structures on national level (nationa age-group teams and Emerging Boks/Bok A team) including the senior national team, and nationally contracted players.
I seriously fail to see how this equates to socialist dictator behaviour.
23 Feb 2010, 10:11 am
@PissAnt:
Not sure if you thought through that last post properly.
The claim that we have enough resources for 10 superclubs is ludicrous, to put it mildly. In fact, we should only have 3, competitive Super 14 teams, never mind 6.
As for the voting process at SARU – it is actually skewed in favour of the smaller unions. I would love for the Big 5 to pull out of SARU and go it alone, leaving the squabbling midgets to fight over what’s left. After all, the Griffons have as much voting power within SARU as the Bulls have.
And that really says it all, doesn’t it…
23 Feb 2010, 10:12 am
@RedLion:
I bet the GDP of the SEC is way better than that of the central districts (Cheetahs)…
23 Feb 2010, 10:16 am
@Tacitus:
No they do not Tac – the bigger unions votes counts for more points (points based system) than the smaller unions.
And of course we do not have enough ‘resources’ for 10 super clubs currently BUT THAT IS MY POINT.
It is because of the current socialist setup that we have that development of rugby professionally and commercially is surpressed that we do not have this.
And tell me, does my views on this matter reflect a socialist dictator system or approach or does this from your post:
I would love for the Big 5 to pull out of SARU and go it alone, leaving the squabbling midgets to fight over what’s left.
My post was well enough thought through thanks.
But it comes back to my very first post on this matter.
None so blind as those not willing to see.
23 Feb 2010, 10:17 am
@Tacitus:
Add to my views of national DOR.
I have advocated for some time now the 6 major regions in SA rugby split to a large extend from control over SA Rugby and ‘go at it on their own’ as private, or semi-privately owned franchises or ‘rugby regions’.
23 Feb 2010, 10:22 am
@PissAnt:
Really.
(In a sweet voice): Does that include full control over their Springbok players, then…
23 Feb 2010, 10:30 am
@Tacitus: Ahhh then you would have a real SARU; not a govt run and funded union.
If I am wrong regarding government funding please do not hesitate in correctly me. Indirect government funding through sponsorship is still funding.
23 Feb 2010, 10:33 am
@Tacitus:
Absolutely, they contract them.
How can you not have full control over players you contract?
Any system will have to have a national controlling body – simple. That is the way things work or we can kiss our participation in international rugby goodbye.
National rugby will always come before provincial or regional/union interest.
If not – exclude them.
23 Feb 2010, 10:34 am
@TonyM: 53
Will Cheeky throw his name in the hat for SARU president? Will he then bat for the Spears?
23 Feb 2010, 10:35 am
not that I care either way where it is that the Bulls pick up their 5 points, be it Joburg,Bloem or PE.
….but who wants to get involved with cheeky in any capacity whatsoever?
@PissAnt:
…don’t know if you watched Reunion last week but the Kiwis are moving away from the centralized/draft system. And eveyone there seems to be thrilled with the idea. Maybe we have got it right?
23 Feb 2010, 10:36 am
@PissAnt:
What a decentralised system will do is give our national body or interest a much wider base, with a much larger professional pool to contract from (pick Boks from).
A simple concept that can be easily controlled through a 3-tier or level contract system for our top players which includes the union contract, S14 contract and national contract. Each level superceding the other (lower one).
23 Feb 2010, 10:38 am
@Brigadier Van Zyl:
Did not – Tac mentioned it and as mentioned to him I suppose time will tell if it moves from discussing it to actually doing it.
Franchises might have more power and become more powerful, but to what expense to the union itself?
Why is it that one of the most popular and successful team participation sports in the world works on a draft system and does so successfully?
23 Feb 2010, 10:40 am
Anycase, this subject has been debated to death before – I am out.
23 Feb 2010, 10:43 am
@PissAnt:
another line of thought….
South Africa has secured 2 of the past 3 Super titles and has a great shot of securing a 3rd in 4 seasons. 2 of the last 4 worldcups.
why change anything?
23 Feb 2010, 10:46 am
I’m no expert on the nfl….but having a draft system is only half the story.
you still need to pay top dollar to secure the top draft pick don’t you?
Can the southern kings afford Jean DeVilliers should he re-enter the SA playing pool?
or maybe I got the story wrong?
23 Feb 2010, 10:55 am
Keo,
I think that this whole S14 argument can be put to bed quite easily…
I agree that the Spears/King/Aces (whatever we name them) should be playing Currie Cup, and the top 5 Currie Cup teams (based on points) go through to the following year S14.
Why have it any other way? This will strengthen the Currie Cup (we need that), and it will not expose any team that battles through the CC at S14 level.
I have very large concerns for the Spears/Kings/Aces. While I believe that we definitely need a union in the Eastern/Southern Cape, my worry is that these boys will be thrown into S15 with no real experience of that level and become the whipping boys. This will further illustrate the “window dressing” policy. It could blow up in SARFU face. If we create a team that is politically and racially motivated, and they fail horribly, certain politicians will feel vindicated and have the “I Told You So” smirk.
If we truly have concern for the well being of the game, we would create a franchise, and let them grow as players, and work through the ranks. If these guys struggle at CC but have a few stars, the can be accommodated at the other unions come S14 time.
Finally – if this team came to fruition, the Rugby Bosses in SA would never allow 10 foreign internationals to get the team up and running, and what would be the point of that in the first case? Bringing in foreign nationals will not strengthen the state of the game in SA, furthermore, it will deny local POC their opportunities.
23 Feb 2010, 11:02 am
@BULLET: What you have not taken into account or have taken for granted is that how many of the provinces will want to rest their Springboks if they stand a chance of not qualifying for the next year’s Super rugby, Springbok rugby will suffer.
I doubt any, the Bulls were bleeding without Matfield, Botha, FDP and Habana or imagine a tired Juan Smith being flogged to death by the Cheetahs
23 Feb 2010, 11:11 am
Xhosakid,
Fair point.I feel that the unions with the most Boks should still not suffer at Currie Cup level without their Bokkies.
Take away Matfield, FDP, Steyn, Bakkies etc etc, and the Bulls will still win 80% of their Currie Cup games. Stormers should be the same. Sharks too (hmmm)
As far as rest goes, I think that only certain Boks need to be rested. If these guys are identified at the start of the year, the large unions have plenty time to make a plan. Finally, at the moment, these Boks are barely rested, and come out to play the “big” games anyway.
SA rugby are not in a win win situation on the rest issue. While provincial coaches have the right to play whoever whenever, Bok rugby is always at risk.
23 Feb 2010, 11:28 am
@BULLET:
You can’t have certain players (whether potential or actual Springboks) excluded from potential super rugby selection due to where their team finishes in the currie cup.
If we have 5 spots, all available unions / players need to have the chance to be selected into 1 of those 5 teams.
Else you’re shooting yourself in the foot in terms of super rugby results, player development, and providing the bok coach with the best possible pool from which to select his team.
Therefore – combining Lions and Cheetahs is the only real workable solution.
23 Feb 2010, 11:28 am
@BULLET:
On that basis, the Cheetahs would qualify close to the top each year, only to be wallopped in the S14. You can’t judge a team’s performance without its superstars as an indication of how it will perform in the S14.
No, best is to use the standings on the S14 log as an indication, and then have some kind of promotion relegation system for the bottom placed team.
23 Feb 2010, 11:48 am
Bring in a relagation system. The top 5 CC teams play. End of story. Give the Spears some cash to get the ball rolling…
23 Feb 2010, 11:50 am
@Olivergm: No, refer to post 105 – you can’t exclude 8-15% of the country’s best playrs from super rugby for a whole year
23 Feb 2010, 11:57 am
@Mongril: I take your point but having two home bases does not work either. Ellis Park will out mussle the Freestate from an Admin perspective, which is not right. Maybe whoever end higher on the log in the CC between the Cheetah’s and Lions gets to be the “home base” for the Cats… its a mess!
23 Feb 2010, 12:18 pm
Where is Skopskiet????
Karma!!!!
23 Feb 2010, 12:30 pm
@TonyM: Thanks for the post Tony M(cKeever?). I had a look at the Spears’ Wikipedia page and the following paragraph jumped out at me:
“In August, 2006, a High Court of South Africa ruling stated that the Spears had a valid contract with SANZAR and SARU to compete in the Super 14 and Currie Cup. However, due to the organisation’s financial and administrative troubles, in November 2006 a settlement was reached. The Spears abandoned their legal case, and initially planned to continue to exist without competing in the Super 14. In spite of this hope, the organisation soon ceased to exist.”
In terms of this then, the Spears no longer have any legal case as a result of a settlement? Please comment.
I personally don’t give a damn whether the Golden Cats or the Southern Kings or the Spears or whomever are the next S14 team as long as it helps with blooding “development” players so that we don’t have to pick quotas in our national team. For crying out loud it’s bee, over 15 years in this new SA and we are still trying to fit a square peg in a round hole….
23 Feb 2010, 12:35 pm
@Staal: Staal – could not agree with you more
23 Feb 2010, 12:44 pm
Been waiting for a transformation post from Keo. Right on time…
This Kings situation is very complicated. Even if the Kings do play in the CC/S15, they have to play in 3 “home” grounds. It’s ridiculous.
The Cats faced problems when that was the case during the S12. And who do you chop from the CC? They aren’t going out without a fight either. And if Kings get relegated from the CC? Then what?
23 Feb 2010, 12:47 pm
Wow Keo. Nice to write biased letters and get paid to do so, eh? I’ll be biased in return.
Now let’s see. After 2 decades the Stormers haven’t achieved anything in Super Rugby.
In the last decade WP and its co-Stormer-teams haven’t won anything… not even Vodacom Cup!
Yes, WP has the 3rd most support (according to a study recently done) and Cheetahs the 4th, but how many of the WP/Stormers support comes from the EP? Quite a lot. Most of those will jump to the Kings when they are included.
If any team should be released from S14, it should be the Stormers. Their entire existence is a dark patch in our sport since re-admission.
You want to re-create the Cats, which includes 7 local unions? Why not the Stormers then?
Please, if you answer this, give me some facts Mr Keo. Not your usual dribble.
23 Feb 2010, 12:52 pm
@Bouts: Ag blow it outta yr p00p-chute man…Stormers got all the Big names and the fans don’t boo their own players(except maybe for Luke)…Stormer fans are die-hards,and soon they’ll have the prettiest stadium in SA (evil)
23 Feb 2010, 12:53 pm
@mozez22: Why would the Kings/Spears plasy in 3 “home” grounds, do the Lions play in Witbank, Do the Bulls play in Potch? or do the Cheetah’s play in Kemberly? , Do the Stormers play in Paarl
Lets think things through before offering our opinions
23 Feb 2010, 12:56 pm
@Bouts: With all due respect Bouts, if there is “dribble”, I have just read it in your post, no need for Keo to intervene, you have done a great job yourself
23 Feb 2010, 12:57 pm
@Brigadier Van Zyl:
Why would any player return from OS to play for a racially biased side, not going to happen?
23 Feb 2010, 12:58 pm
@Bouts: Mix it up with the Sharks and Kings…makes much more sense,a few poison heads thrown in with a coupla transkei koppe and you got the ingredients for a potent coastal rugga team
23 Feb 2010, 13:04 pm
The problem with the original Cats franchise was that the Lions were seen as the main partner and the Cheetahs as the poor country cousins – change those roles around and you have a winning idea.
23 Feb 2010, 13:05 pm
@Brigadier Van Zyl: the draft is for new players who have been out of high school for at least 3 years or a player from another league like arena football. A player needs to sign with an agent before entering the draft.
Once a player is drafted and has not played that player can only negotiate with the team that drafted him. The player can refuse to play if an agreement is not reached. A player can sit out an entire year and re enter the draft the next season.
It is a little bit more complicated than that, a hell of a lot more money is involved and is sortof a huge big circus. You really don’t want that for rugby…
23 Feb 2010, 13:05 pm
@Bouts:
You know something, there’s a Super Rugby ranking table which shows the ranking point positions of each team since the first Super12 match in 1996.
Each team started on 80 points and they move up and down relative to each other using the same points exchange system that the IRB use for ranking Test nations.
Exchange points are doubled for semis and finals.
This table reads as follows:
1. Bulls
2. Chiefs
3. Hurricanes
4. Brumbies
5. Stormers
6. Waratahs
7. Crusaders
8. Force
9. Blues
10. Sharks
11. Reds
12. Cheetahs
13. Lions
14. Highlanders
Care to re-evaluate your point of view?
23 Feb 2010, 13:07 pm
@Storm outta hell: @119, Durban Poison + Pondo Magic, could be something potent…
23 Feb 2010, 13:08 pm
@stormersboy:
The Spears financial and administrative troubles stemmed from SA Rugby alone.
SA Rugby were obligated to pay R10m only for 2006 and help procure sponsors. This is why we won the court case.
SA Rugby paid R5.6m starting August 2005 when Peter de Villiers was appointed coach and unilaterally stopped paying players and personnel in March 2006. That and that alone shut down the Spears and SA Rugby reneging on their own agreements and Presidents Council resolution. There was no maladministration at the Spears.
They would have been better off paying the balance for a total of R1m and said you are on your own.
Instead Cheetahs got another R3.5m as a grant – Griquas just picked up R3m last year and so it goes on and leaves a void in SA rugby in the Eastern Cape.
The problem is naked fear of being relegated out of the Super 14 or Super 15.
Establish a promotion relegation tri-game series and let the best team win.
The Super Rugby team that does not play in the Super 15 tournament plays in another international tournament so sponsors do not lose their residual equity or exposure or hospitality and value with a team and no competition to play in.
Add these 2 components and the Eastern Cape drama is fixed – like overnight.
23 Feb 2010, 13:09 pm
@WP Till I Die: Crusaders @ 7…seriously..?
23 Feb 2010, 13:11 pm
@Bouts: Hey hey HEY now….steady on son…….Leave us out of this……
23 Feb 2010, 13:11 pm
@TonyM: You need all the top SA players in 1 competition each year – you can’t have some ina proper tough competition and others palying a few “who cares” exhibition matches.
That will not be good for our super rugby or springbokn aspirations.
23 Feb 2010, 13:12 pm
@Storm outta hell:
They took a big knock with the loss against the Reds…they lost something like 2.5 ranking points…they were 2nd or 3rd last week.
23 Feb 2010, 13:14 pm
Correction: Should be: “They would have been better off paying the balance for a total of R10m and said you are on your own.
23 Feb 2010, 13:15 pm
@TonyM: Howcome you still can’t put out a side that can beat the Pumas?
23 Feb 2010, 13:17 pm
@WP Till I Die: Wow…imagine they lose to Sharks…nah,I just don’t see it..!
23 Feb 2010, 13:20 pm
@TonyM: Ok, granted, SA Rugby have “maladministrated” the Spears commitment, I think there’s agreement on that. As to the financial woes at the Spears, I accept your point of view, as a fledgling operation you were given assurances that were not met, which resulted in losses.
What I was more interrested in was the part of the paragraph which referred to the Spears and SA Rugby “coming to an agreement”. If that is so then I assume that the spears claim is not valid anymore? Is this so? Please advise?
As for your promotion/relegation idea, we all think that’s fine for the most part, but the “other competition” is a bit vague. Where would the losing team play? In which competition?
23 Feb 2010, 13:20 pm
@Transformation:
@7
You are so correct with that 2nd. sentence of yours.
The other amazing thing is that so many fools(seemingly experts) will comment on this and they know absolutely nothing about the total rugby set up in the region from just yesterday let alone from way back when in the real days of Eric Majola and Spring Roses and Union R.F.C., and Kwaru and Sedru(further up that East coast) etc., etc.
Man did you and others not give that closet racist, dangerman, some respect yesterday. The irony is he so deserved it with his I-am-right-because-I-am-white-attitude.
That’s it for now, lunch and further serious efforts await thereafter..
23 Feb 2010, 13:22 pm
steve Biko played in the valleys of the E Cape….a deal must be done…every now and then its more than just the bottom line….ffs !
23 Feb 2010, 13:22 pm
thats why most people want the Kings to fail ..because of puz’e like Elliott2.
23 Feb 2010, 13:34 pm
@grant10:
@134
Biko was my lock at U. of Natal in the mid ’70s but you should have seen our centre then, a student called Jekwa who made Bobo look like a journeyman.
The area is loaded with serious rough diamonds just waiting to be polished (“full many a gem of purest rays serene the dark unfathomed caves of oceans bear”) or is it poetically a case of :
“full many a flower is born to blush unseen and waste its sweetness on the desert air”?
23 Feb 2010, 13:38 pm
@Fat_Cat:
Devoid of those important cortical cells called Betz cells?
Continue to wallow in your supreme ignorance.
23 Feb 2010, 13:42 pm
I was actually approached recently with the offer of combining the Lions and the Cheetahs, and I turned it down. So I guess the Kings will have to find another way in.
>^. .^<
23 Feb 2010, 13:42 pm
@elliott2:
Are you that dude that plays for NMMU?
23 Feb 2010, 13:42 pm
@elliott2:
I did not know you were into classical English poetry!
Elegy was undoubtedly Thomas Gray’s masterpiece.
23 Feb 2010, 13:44 pm
@elliott2:
Many (now) common English phrases were first used in that poem, such as celestial fire, kindred spirit, paths of glory, and far from the madding crowd.
23 Feb 2010, 13:48 pm
@PissAnt:
Don’t know who you are referring to but the answer is still NO.
23 Feb 2010, 13:51 pm
@elliott2:
Ah okay, name escapes me now, think it is the 8th man and he is quite the philosopher and poet apparently.
23 Feb 2010, 13:52 pm
@WP Till I Die:
Or are you trying to say that is really only supposed to be meant for the likes of you( but remember you are a D….hie)?
Actually more a case of you again showcasing ‘your pedigree’.
23 Feb 2010, 13:54 pm
Much more interesting reading
Bulls coach Frans Ludeke moved quickly to dismiss the ‘favourites’ tag attached to his team after a dream start to the defence of their Super 14 title.
Following their back-to-back 50-pointers in the opening weeks – 51-34 against the Cheetahs and 50-32 against the Brumbies – the bookmakers have installed the Bulls as favourites. They are listed as 3/1 favourites in both South Africa and abroad – followed by the Crusaders (7/2), Hurricanes (5/1) and Brumbies (6/1).
Last year’s beaten finalists, the Chiefs, and the Stormers, South Africa’s other inform team, are listed to finish outside the top four at 7/1.
However, Ludeke said it is far too early to start speaking of being favourites.
“It is only the second week of thew competition,” the wily Bulls coach told rugby365.com, when asked about his team’s impressive start.
He spoke about some of the bounces that went the way of his team – such as the try to wing Gerhard van den Heever midway through the second half, after the Brumbies had taken a 27-20 lead early in the half. A Morné Steyn penalty was followed by Van den Heever’s score – when he charged through as the Brumbies tapped back a line-out ball and hacked ahead, collected and scored. Steyn made it 30-27 with the conversion.
The Bulls never looked back from there and raced into a 50-27 lead, before a late consolation score gave the Brumbies’ scoreline some respectability.
While he is happy that his team is being rewarded for the hard work they are putting in, he warned that it is “back to zero” for his team this week.
“We have to start from scratch again this week, as the next opposition are waiting for us,” Ludeke told rugby365.com.
“The Waratahs are a very good team and will ask some serious questions of our team,” the Bulls mentor said, adding: “They have some very solid, physical forwards and very dangerous backs.”
Looking at his own team, Ludeke pointed to the fact that his team conceded three tries in both their matches in the opening weeks – outscoring the Cheetahs six-to-three and the Brumbies five-to-three.
He said that is a clear indication that they still have things to work on.
The good news is that captain Victor Matfield was cleared at a SANZAR disciplinary hearing, while star loose forward Pierre Spies, who left the field late in the 50-32 win over the Brumbies at the weekend with a knee strain, should be fit to play against the Waratahs. Add to that the return of fellow loose forward Dewald Potgieter and the return to training of veteran lock Danie Rossouw and suddenly things look very good for the Bulls.
Ludeke said he was pleased Matfield was cleared on an innocuous charge and with the return from injury of key players the Bulls are in a “very healthy” position.
23 Feb 2010, 13:54 pm
Then he has talent Ps.
23 Feb 2010, 13:57 pm
@WP Till I Die: And others not from Elegy, but his other works such as:
“where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise,” ..
“nor all that glisters, gold”
Only penned 13 Poems, in total, but Elegy is a masterpiece.
Good stuff.
23 Feb 2010, 13:57 pm
@XhosaKid: Kings would be made from EP, Border, and SWD, am I not correct? You think either of those unions won’t want a game at their home ground?
I would feel aggrieved if there would be no games at ABSA Park (East London), although the side is representing us as well.
23 Feb 2010, 14:00 pm
@elliott2:
I was pleasantly surprised, that’s all – not many on here appreciate poetry, I can assure you of that!
23 Feb 2010, 14:01 pm
@WP Till I Die: @stormersboy:
I stand corrected then!
23 Feb 2010, 14:02 pm
the only way the spears can play
is to make room for an extra team another day.
by a chinese poet called mr whocares
23 Feb 2010, 14:05 pm
@WP Till I Die: Not corrected at all. You had it spot on!
23 Feb 2010, 14:07 pm
@WP Till I Die:
How does this, one of my real favourites move you?:
” Ek het n huisie by die see
Dis nag.
Ek **** aaneen, aaneen die branders slaan
Teenaan die rots waarop my huisie staan…..”
HAVE to go now, don’t distract me .
23 Feb 2010, 14:07 pm
@vasteses:
You’re a poet and you don’t know it…
23 Feb 2010, 14:08 pm
@WP Till I Die:
Oh really
Is poetry only for white people.
23 Feb 2010, 14:11 pm
@elliott2: Golwe, not branders.
23 Feb 2010, 14:12 pm
@WP Till I Die:
Jeez I don’t know why interest in poetry, German speaking bloggers, etc etc “pleasantly surprise you”.
Not all of us are dumb clucks, you know.
Some of us even went to skool.
23 Feb 2010, 14:13 pm
@Dawn: No, not at all. I heard this one just the other day:
“Ice cream, Grenadilla lolly!
Grenadilla lolly to make you jolly!”
It was beautiful.
23 Feb 2010, 14:14 pm
@Dawn:
PMS?
23 Feb 2010, 14:15 pm
@Mongril:
As you well know there are way more than 5 (franchises) X 30 players for a total of 150 elite rugby players in SA.
You are then discriminating against the up and coming talented elite players, of whom there are +-450 players, as well as the valuable old war horses plying their trade overseas and they number about another 150.
So right there you could choose out of a pool of 600 elite South African rugby players a formidable 4-5 teams on their own.
I assure you that increased international competition will refresh our rugby.
The Six Nations and Heineken Cup matches play to full stadiums all the time.
The SANZAR tournament is now so inbred and tired, even the NZ and Australian rugby unions play to stadiums that are20-30% full.
Spectators are voting with their feet and it is starting to look bad.
23 Feb 2010, 14:16 pm
@Blouste:
I actually do know it,
saw the tahs throw it
the brumbies blow it
the stmrs shove it
and the bulls bash it
23 Feb 2010, 14:16 pm
@katman:
I’m pleasantly surprised!
It’s stunning!
Just for us fools.
23 Feb 2010, 14:17 pm
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité!!!!
23 Feb 2010, 14:17 pm
@mozez22: You obviously haven’t kept yourself abreast with developments, have you?, There is an international stadium called the Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, its a first class stadium, no need to argue further.
If you are really in EL, whats the problem going to PE, Limpopo and Mpumalanga okes flock to Loftus every weekend?
I say again, think before you post, lets all do our best to elevate the debate
23 Feb 2010, 14:18 pm
@Duffman: Huey, Dewey, Louis!!!
23 Feb 2010, 14:21 pm
@Dawn: Poetry is the basis of all lyricists. So no, poetry is for the masses.
23 Feb 2010, 14:22 pm
@stormer in a teacup:
Mmmf. Let them eat cake.
23 Feb 2010, 14:23 pm
@Duffman:
You speak French?
Pleasantly surprised I am.
23 Feb 2010, 14:23 pm
@elliott2:
My favourite is A.G. Visser:
Winter
Dis ****** koud.
23 Feb 2010, 14:23 pm
@Duffman: Or gooey, stewey, ratatouille!!!
23 Feb 2010, 14:24 pm
@elliott2:
My favourite is A.G. Visser:
Winter
Dis f***en koud.
23 Feb 2010, 14:24 pm
@Dawn:
These guys are so cooped up in their ivory towers, still, that they know very little of the REAL Cape around them.
Names like Dr. N Alexander, R.O.(teargas)Dudley, B.Kies, R.Rives,etc., etc. mean litle or nothing to them.
Give it to them Dawn.
23 Feb 2010, 14:24 pm
@Dawn: @elliott2: i’m sure wptid was not suggesting anyrhing racial with his question.
23 Feb 2010, 14:25 pm
@RugbyRulz:
If that’s the case I will stay with the masses.
23 Feb 2010, 14:26 pm
@Dawn:
I’m a true renaissance man, mon amie.
(Or I figured out how to use that google doohickey)
23 Feb 2010, 14:26 pm
@elliott2:
RO Dudley taught me at Stones.
My cousin is married to Russell.
23 Feb 2010, 14:28 pm
@stormer in a teacup:
Same difference. But you are absolutely correct,Disa??
See mistakes occur whenever one rushes and I have been doing that for the last hour now and I should not.
Totally away now.
23 Feb 2010, 14:29 pm
@Transformation:
Not necessarily, but equally, I hate intellectual snobs who are “pleasantly surprised” when other people quote poets.
23 Feb 2010, 14:35 pm
@TonyM:
And adding the Kings to that and we would be even less inclined to watch Super rugby as it is Foxsports local viewing of RSA vs RSA games are little to zero other than the expats.
The Rebels are here next year and with them a new chapter in Australian rugby with us gaining a domestic competition (the opening local vs local format), and funded by Super rugby too boot.
23 Feb 2010, 14:35 pm
@Dawn: A cup of tea and Cucumber sandwich or maybe just Pimms, my dear lady?
23 Feb 2010, 14:37 pm
@XhosaKid:
Listen boet.
My pinky is up in the air!
23 Feb 2010, 14:39 pm
@Dawn:
So you are not ‘pleasantly surprised’ I quoted AG Visser I take…
23 Feb 2010, 14:40 pm
@Dawn: # 177 Yes the patronizing tone. Don’t you love it! Tards the lot-ov-em.
23 Feb 2010, 15:02 pm
@PissAnt:
No, cos I know that one!
Luv it too.
23 Feb 2010, 15:05 pm
I thought this was a rugby site, not a poetry rehersal! FFS.
23 Feb 2010, 15:10 pm
@Dawn:
23 Feb 2010, 15:10 pm
@Aus_Rebel:
You would have to rub it in………..
Know that R75m of that money that you are revelling rolling around in with your local Aussie competition, comes at the expense of the 14 SA Rugby unions, courtesy SA Rugby’s Hoskins and Marinos, to the ARU.
The NZRU also received R75m.
Your Melbourne Rebels have high aspirations and will still come to SA for a few players.
When is their first game and why do you not let them play a couple of warm up games this year still against the Eastern Cape?
23 Feb 2010, 15:17 pm
Who is this “them” everyone is on about???
me, us, them……. vok, kom terug ubuntu
23 Feb 2010, 15:24 pm
@Bod:
What you on about bru.
23 Feb 2010, 15:31 pm
Archimedes, the well known truth-seeker,
Jumping out of his bath, cried “Eureka!”
He ran half a mile,
Wearing only a smile,
And became the very first streaker.
23 Feb 2010, 15:56 pm
@Dawn:
So, an intellectual snob I am.
I stand suitably rebuffed, I suppose I deserved that.
23 Feb 2010, 16:12 pm
The Lions/ Cheetahs & Stormers usually finish dead last, why would SA want another team, despite the shite on this blog the talent just isn’t there, clearly from super rugby results.
23 Feb 2010, 16:25 pm
@NZINCHINA:
Kom jy in met die deur en alles.
23 Feb 2010, 16:29 pm
@Dawn: dat is “val met de duer in huis”
23 Feb 2010, 16:29 pm
@bananaboy: sorry “deur”
23 Feb 2010, 16:43 pm
@NZINCHINA: The problem with South Africa and its teams is not talent in terms of players but rather the incompetence of its administration thereof
23 Feb 2010, 16:51 pm
@XhosaKid:
Nah mate don’t kid yourself you don’t have the players for a 5th team, like we don’t – Dawn can you translate I don’t speak Zulu.
23 Feb 2010, 16:51 pm
Sorry that should be 6th team but lets br honest 5th as well.
23 Feb 2010, 17:00 pm
You are wrong there.. a huge wealth of talent waiting to be unleashed in the eastern cape..
The sleeping giant..
23 Feb 2010, 18:50 pm
KEO, you’re spot on here. SA Rugby is an embarrassment, and it is starting to make me think Puke Watson was right… maybe the game is run by a bunch of racist dutchmen and their cronies… but even more sadly, it’s run by a bunch of incompetent fools. If they were smart, racist dutchmen, everything would be okay… I guess that’s the problem with racists though – they never are smart.
I grew up in Durban, but did humanitarian work in Mdantsane and King Williams Town for 2 years… it is the ONLY place in the country where you drive around and see black kids in rural areas playing rugby, not soccer. That alone should be the basis for a Super franchise. There are so many players there – black and white – and they all migrate to the Sharks and other rich franchises, or fall off the radar. It’s a crime! But i’m sure the Sharks and Bulls oppose it because their goes their talent pool! I’m a Sharks fan, but come on SA Rugby! Pull your heads out!
23 Feb 2010, 21:39 pm
K
KA
KAA
KAAP
KAAPS
KAAPSE
KAAPSE K
KAAPSE KL
KAAPSE KLO
KAAPSE KLOP
KAAPSE KLOPS
KAAPSE KLOPSE
Raak wys!
23 Feb 2010, 21:46 pm
As ek wee innie Kaap is gaan ek julle almal kom swak maak.
23 Feb 2010, 21:49 pm
@Sheriff: #201 you have done lost your marbles…
24 Feb 2010, 03:34 am
The Southern Spares/Kinglets are a total waste of time and money. They’d be smoked by either the Cheetahs or the Lions by at least 30 points, and by any of the Anzac teams by 50.
24 Feb 2010, 11:25 am
In two years we will see the Super 16 or 17
NZ 6
SA 6
Aus 5
24 Feb 2010, 19:19 pm
Keo
Couldn’t disagree more:
A while back (sevral years in fact), I suggested that if Cheeky and the Southern Spears wanted to be taken seriously they need to take a lesson from Louis Luys (nauseating for them I know…).
He took a rubbish Transvaal team and turned them into a world class provincial/club outfit. Everyone was then forced to listen to this businessman who like to throw two fingers to the rugby establishment of the day…
I think that Cheeky should do the same with the Spears: – win a couple of currie cups or at least get into contention and then everyone will start taking you seriously. He needs to stop relying on political pressure and entitlement and start getting some hard rugby achievements under his belt.
Right now he is asking for a handout but just like everything worthwhile in life it has to be earned.
Personally, I don’t think he should be dismayed by this but rather excited – it well within his grasp to turn Eastern Province rugby into a competitive outfit – BUT he needs to do this first before he will be taken seriously.
Sorry but you can’t just rock up and demand a super rugby slot
24 Feb 2010, 19:24 pm
lick bum keo . what a lot of hogwash. why should Kings get favoured over Lions and Cheetahs, from reading your article you seem to suggest that they should be favoured because the union has the most black players. If the only reason the Kings were to be favoured is because of the majority of black players then SARU would be being racist. I agree Kings should come to the party but first through the CC.
But this article, ffs what a load of shite, lick bum man, lick bum!
24 Feb 2010, 21:21 pm
Regarding the latest SANZAR TV deal.
There are alot of people speaking without the facts here.
SARU increased TV revenue by 54%, when you include the SANZAR (Super14/TN) deal and the Supersport (June tests/CC) deal.
ARU increased their TV revenue by 14.6% and NZRU by 9%.
When you adjust for inflation, it becomes much worse for our partners in SANZAR. Adjusting the value of the money they each receive, to 2009 levels, showing the whole story and the real terms value (yes, a guess on 2010 and 2011 inflation, but it wont be far out). ARU will only get about US$750K more in real terms than they did in 2006 at the start of the current deal. NZRU, basically the same in real terms. SARU meanwhile have a increase of US$10m in real terms.
If you get R700m from Supersport for Currie Cup and June tests over five season. It really doesn’t matter if the SANZAR money has gone from US$25m a season to US$20m a season, does it? You are getting US$18.7m (at current rates) from Supersport a season IN ADDITION to the SANZAR cash of US$20m a season!
Mark Keohane is wrong when he says SARU got screwed over by the new SANZAR deal and all we got was ownership of the Currie Cup. As is Pissant when he asks what SARU got out of it:
- retained the Currie Cup. This was what was at stake, not “owning it”, but it existing at all.
- secured Springbok matches to be played in a block at the start of the TN, so Currie Cup playoff window is free
- secured playoff system where the top side from each nation progresses, important as each nation will not be playing the same games (through derby system)
- set precedent where each side does not play all the foreign teams (each SA side will play 4 of the Kiwi and Aussie teams, not all 5, same for Aus/NZ teams). Important to stop comp bloat as it expands.
- got the earliest start and finish possible so the whole season was not taken over.
- retained June tests (which were going to be scrapped)
And what did they lose out on?
- an extra team (they had no chance of winning anyway)
- derby structure
- percentage cut gone from 39% to 33.3% (by the by, what Supersport is putting into the SANZAR deal has gone from 45% to 33%, we are getting more of the value we put in now)
… and err what else?
Pissant is wrong when he states the presidents council did not consult on this and get their figures. They did an extensive consultation with all stake holders (the big 5 + SARU) and Supersport.
They understand that the fans want derby matches/Currie Cup. they also know there is room for a further two Super rugby sides (Kings/Spears and “inland XV”/Royals). They also know there is next to bugger all way of fitting that all inside of a Super rugby vehicle.
Most of the value of the SANZAR deal is locked up in the TN not Super rugby.
SANZAR matches played each season have increased from the 75 in the original deal to the 103 in the current deal (37% increase), to the 134 in the next deal (30% increase again). That’s a 79% increase overall. Almost all of this is from a bloated Super rugby comp. Returns on this, what the deal is actually worth, has increased by just 8% and by -21% in real terms ajusted to 2009 levels. The next deal will be worse than the current one, compared like for like (-7% in value) and in real terms taking into account inflation (-13%). It was only the current deal where Tri-Nations content was doubled, that produced any real increase in value (16% increase like for like with original deal, -9% adjusted to present value end of 2009).
A proper full strength expanded Currie Cup played through Feb to May. Would probably be worth more than the Super rugby element. You then play a 4N against Pumas/Wallabies/All Blacks/Springboks. This is what SA rugby needs.
At the moment we can accommodate Super rugby and Currie Cup. Have our cake and eat it. Getting a double pay out. If this is ever not the case, Super rugby will be cut adrift. The driving factor could well be Puma involvement in the TN (scheduled for next season), this will necessitate Super rugby and TN components being separately negotiated in future.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.