Boks going nowhere soon
16 Aug 2010
MARK KEOHANE writes that the Springboks will never split from Sanzar.
Every second year, when the moans start and the groans become louder and South African rugby’s administrators insecurities are at their most obvious, one of the emotionally vulnerable suits at the South African Rugby Union tells a media mate that South Africa is looking at alternatives to the Sanzar alliance with Australia and New Zealand.
New Zealand and Australia then react, there is a conference call and a statement is then drafted with all three nations telling each other just how important one is to the other, how good each is and how Super Rugby and Tri-Nations are the best rugby competitions in the world.
The Tri-Nations will become the Four Nations (unless someone clever comes up with a tournament name) and Super 14 is Super 15 as of 2011.
Leaving Sanzar is not as easy as it seems. I know because I was among a study group that did a heck of a lot of research into the possibility a couple of years ago. The lack of a global season is the first stumbling block and the Northern Hemisphere would only accommodate South Africa if all the compromise was made by South Africa, whose provincial unions aren’t prepared to change their season to play in the north.
Plans were at an advanced stage a couple of years ago to put together a tournament that would kill off Super rugby, with the top clubs from England, France and South Africa the alternative to Super Rugby. New Zealand and Australia would then play their own competition. The idea never left the boardroom as the Celtic nations insisted on loyalty from the French and English to the concept of the European Cup and, in the case of the latter, other tournaments.
And so it went, at provincial, regional and national level.
The broadcast market in the UK is already saturated with all the other sporting events. South Africa’s administrators live in a dream world when they should be appreciating the dream world that is the Sanzar alliance. Where it always gets complicated, and it is always South Africa threatening to leave, is because we have administrators so decidedly inferior to the New Zealanders and Australians.
Our boys get steamrolled in negotiations and Australian CEO John O’Neill would have a tougher time clubbing a baby seal than he would getting his way in round table talks that add to the strength of Sanzar, even if it comes at the expense of South Africa.
When Saru board member Jan Marais told a journalist that the administration had requested a task team to explore possibilities of alternatives, there was a qualifier. He said that it was an obvious exercise to do a couple of years out from any further broadcast negotiations. Saru president Regan Hoskins added the Sanzar alliance was strong, but that debate would always be robust and because this ‘robust debate’ had been made public did not mean there was any ill-feeling.
Questions have subsequently been asked in Australia and New Zealand as to which way South Africa will jump? There is nowhere to go. South Africa is entrenched in Sanzar and the only reason perception is so strong that South Africa is prejudiced is because of South Africa’s weak leadership and lack of presence at the table.
Stronger administration, with an emphasis on substance and not paranoia, would immediately redress any power imbalance. Quality individuals lead to quality leadership.
Then there’s the broadcast deal. The broadcasters determine the strength of the alliance, and not one of South Africa, Australia or New Zealand is stronger on its own. The one needs the other two to strengthen any broadcast deal.
I have always wanted South Africa to play in the north. There is a time difference of an hour to two, an overnight flight is as hectic as it gets in travel demands and there would be so much more variety playing in Europe than against the same old from Australia and New Zealand.
In theory a move makes so much sense, but practically it is impossible to structure.
In the meantime let’s hope South Africa’s administration gets a stronger because that will at least ensure less of a whipping at the boardroom table, which is all this really is about … South Africa’s pathetic admin boys asking for the bullying to stop and threatening to take the ball home if the Kiwis and Aussies don’t stop calling them ugly names and taking their milk money.
Follow SA Rugby mag on Twitter
117 Comments
16 Aug 2010, 09:38 am
Short Dragon!!!
16 Aug 2010, 09:38 am
Dragons. Thats all Im saying.
16 Aug 2010, 09:38 am
Eish Staal.
16 Aug 2010, 09:43 am
Well put Keo. Its just to get up Aus and NZ’s noses and make them remember that SA is key to the SANZAR concept considering our viewership. We hold the purse strings but are too weak to be able to put that across the boardroom table so we threaten a walk out. Very mature.
16 Aug 2010, 09:44 am
To be honest…
we won them in NZ last year and they were also “highly motived” to win us in the last 2 gams but they didn’t…..
being “highly motivated” is not enough for us to beat them…..
we must be better prepared…. that imo is where the problem is….
16 Aug 2010, 09:44 am
What do I do with my keo bucks?
16 Aug 2010, 09:45 am
Yeah it basically comes down to the inability of our administrators rather than the quality of the SANZAR competitions.
Don’t worry NZ/Oz, SA is not going anywhere.
I mean it has now taken 5 years for SA Rugby to establish the Kings/Spears or a competition in which they can play – and still nothing.
If they cannot even get that right there is no way in hell they can negotiate a brand new international competition or structure.
16 Aug 2010, 09:48 am
Pissant : ZZZ
16 Aug 2010, 09:49 am
@Tsudanie(Tsudanie)-6:
16 Aug 2010, 10:00 am
“I know because I was among a study group that did a heck of a lot of research into the possibility a couple of years ago”
Keo the researcher!
16 Aug 2010, 10:07 am
Now, O’neil has made sure we the rest of South Africa subsidies Autralian rugby.
16 Aug 2010, 10:11 am
Sanzar is SA’s only option and the regular dummy-spit in years when they’re getting whacked is just the usual tantrum and venting one has come to expect from the watery-chinned yarpies.
16 Aug 2010, 10:16 am
@TheTackler(TheTackler)-12: incorrect tackler, Sanzar is NZ and Aus’s only option, without the finance brought in by SA, they would sink. The issue, as keo alludes to, is that the SARU don’t make this count at the negotiating table. Also, they could buy a place in the Magners League in the morning if they wanted to.
16 Aug 2010, 10:16 am
Just for the sake of indulgent argument, imagine SA joining a European 7 nations — they’ll have to play rugby in the SA summer, and the visiting teams will have to play in 30C African heat one week and 3C European cold the next. Ridiculous!
Imagine the bleat about “travel disadvantage” then!
16 Aug 2010, 10:27 am
I’m reposting this from another thread because (a) It shows that Keo got scooped by a blogger (again), (b) It’s a better post than his article IMO because it talks about specific instances and (c) I like the look of it so want to admire it, and hey, it’s not like anyone ever repeats anything on this site hey?
Apologies to those that already read it.:
The plain truth is this: SA have been treated like the poorer second cousins by the NZ and Aus rugby unions simply because we have allowed ourselved to be. We were so desperate for internationaly competition that we put ourselves in this position from the start. Each time there was a re-negotiation we came up losing ground.
It’s very simple. Do you think that the whole “get the Yarpies” email scandal is an isolated incident? If you believe that then I’ve got this bridge I’m looking to sell (yes I know I said it before). ALSO, do you think for a second that if SA were caught in a potentially explosively embarrasing situtaion like the NZ Rugby Administration were with this incident, that the Aus/NZ counterparts would simply say “No problem mate, apology accepted”? Not on your Waltzing Matilda boet. The whole incident would have been splashed all over the media, creating maximum exposure and by extension embarrasment for the SA Administration, thereby forcing us into a still weaker position at the negotiating table. It was barely reported here outside of the rugby blogs.
What I’m saying is this. We had ample opportunities to strengthen our position as the major financial contributer to the deal, but we sent sheep to negotiate with the wolves. I don’t blame NZ and Aus for this, I blame the SA rugby Administration. Behind the closed doors of the negotiating room, nice guys finish last. Plain and simple. Do you think that if Louis Luyt went and represented us down under a couple of years ago when the 15th team was bandied about that the result would have been the regional system with 2 guaranteed semi finalists from each country? Exactly. Didn’t think so.
SA Rugby turned over more than a BILLION Rands last year. We are still treating it like a sport, and not a business on that level.
Wise up guys, and as Rangerman and Gunther is want to say, HARDEN the F*CK UP!!
Origionally posted earlier this morning on another thread.
16 Aug 2010, 10:30 am
@Mighty Horua(Mighty Horua)-10: not just a researcher … a damn fine one … not that anything else was to be expected
16 Aug 2010, 10:33 am
@keo(keo)-16: I agree with you about the motives behind the latest “noise’ coming out of SARU about exploring other options. Do you think that our new CEO has anything to do with it? If so i think it’s a good sign. A show of force to strengthen out hand?
16 Aug 2010, 10:34 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-15: err buddy … an opinion can’t be a scoop? An opinion can be insightful, ridiculous, humorous or in good or bad taste, but to call it a scoop is just plain embarrassing (on your part).
I’ll be kind on this fantastic morning in Cape Town and we can both pretend you never wrote that. Geez bugger.
16 Aug 2010, 10:35 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-17: Jurie Roux has not even started yet and you ask if ‘our new CEO’. Come on. What are you on?
16 Aug 2010, 10:37 am
I think SA administrators beleive there own hype at being number one, the best, world champions and they want everyone to bow down to them. They do not like there cash cow beaten. They remind me of alot in the NZRU who have the same attitude.
SA needs 3N as much as NZ & Aust, of course SA will find an extended 6nations easier to win, the competition is not as hard, 6 games against nations comprising spots from 4 to 11 as 1 off games would mean top of table results. The down side is the passion for playing will diminish, no need to play tough EVERY game as you can afford to drop 1 or play a minnow nation for a week off. Tri nations are 6 games of physical & mental toughness and stamina, no game is easy no matter the margin. If the NZRU thought the same way, the AB’s standards would drop, playing nations like Samoa, Tonga & Fiji would not provide the same commitment to WIN.
Both NZ and SA have very proud histories, neither WILL accept 2nd best to the other, Australia is slowly gaining pristege with the same attitude. As much as it grates SA being in 2nd spot on IRB tables, it grates AB’s for only having won the World Cup once, neither is acceptable for our respective nations. Only in the north do they accept 1 win from 4 starts as a success when touring, how many SA fans find losing a Lions game last year as acceptable?
To remain the best, you must play the best. You may not win, but you will always know where your weaknesses are. After all that is where the AB’s found just how vulnerable they were last year, as only SA had the team to expose the weakness.
16 Aug 2010, 10:39 am
@ProudKiwi(ProudKiwi)-20:
This is a typical SA Rugby reaction to save face when they have been literally taken to the cleaners.
No-where in the world can you hope have the top 3 nations in world rugby playing against each other in tests and club/franchises structures.
When it comes to quality in rugby, we are the envy of the NH.
They have the money sure, we have the quality.
16 Aug 2010, 10:41 am
@keo(keo)-18: Thanks for your magnanimity. I’ve been saying this very thing for some time now, and yes, I concede that it’s hardly a scoop, but I’m a part timer so I’m simply being liberal with my literary license (not like you’ve never done that), and no I’m not embarrased at all. I’m actually quite honoured that you chose to post an article that mirrors a lot of what I had posted in a thread an hour or so earlier. You were obviously paying attention.
It’s fine though, you don’t have to credit me at all. Not as if we aren’t regular posters here that keep your threads moving or anything…. 
16 Aug 2010, 10:47 am
@keo(keo)-19: Well whatever I’m on it obviously keeps me more alert than you, as I’m posting what amounts to a large part of your article before you do……
As for our new CEO, and i quote from one of your articles “Stellenbosch University’s Jurie Roux was appointed as Saru’s CEO on Friday.” So he hasn’t taken up residence yet officially. We all know that, hence the simple question to you. Do you think he’s not yet involved at all? Come now, fella.
16 Aug 2010, 10:49 am
Anyway, in spite of how efficiently I’m able to multi-task, I’ve actually got a busy day still ahead, so back to my day job…
16 Aug 2010, 10:50 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-22: How do you think I remain the global number one? I pay attention to everyone, even you. Don’t feel honoured. Just keep on applying your mind to the game, post your opinions and remember to brush your teeth after every meal.
And we share something in common … I am also a part timer, inbetween writing books and running a company with 28 titles and a communications consultancy and … ahh man just unbelievable the amount of work I do and then I still manage to steal a quick moment to acknowledge your efforts. Well done. Well bloody done.
Saru needs you more than you need them.
16 Aug 2010, 10:52 am
the one or two people saying “let them go” or NZ/AU dont need SA you are just being silly.
NZ and AU cannot even afford to make such a threat because they truly have no other options besides SANZAR.
now id really like to see NZ & AU man up and say enough is enough tell SA to leave. They won’t because they need SA in the comp not just for money but lets face it SA rugby is probably the only one that can give NZ rugby any real competition. can you picture Super Rugby without SA teams? the final would be Crusaders vs Hurricanes every single year
the only issue i have with the article is had SA announced this in 2013 or 2014 i would agree but this is 5 years out isn’t that a lot of time to explore other options?
16 Aug 2010, 11:02 am
Keo, I read somewhere a while ago that SA Rugby, through their deal with Supersport, contribute more to SANZAR than New Zealand and Australia combined. Is there any truth to this?
16 Aug 2010, 11:02 am
@keo(keo)-25: hehehe. Actually kinda funny. Your best work for the past 6 years or so.
16 Aug 2010, 11:02 am
@boktillzero(boktillzero)-26: Why should either NZ or Oz tell SA to leave? They have no problems with the Sanzar arrangements as they are. It’s only the yarpies who are grizzling — as usual — and threatening to leave — yet again — and feeling hard done by — boo hoo, harden up.
And if you routinely bluff every other year and time after time your bluff routinely gets called, you really are NOT strengthening your hand.
You’re exposed as a bluffer who always overplays a weak hand.
You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em; know when to fold ‘em; know when to walk away; know when to run…
16 Aug 2010, 11:04 am
@keo(keo)-25:@keo(keo)-25: Global no1? Sometimes we also wonder why, but yet it’s so. Go figure. That probably says more about us than it does about you..
And yes, we share more than that in common as you know, so I’ll cut you some slack this morning too. After all, you need us more than we need you…..
Since I’m in the giving credit mood, as you are, I will say that your newsletter is actually one of the few that I get that is actually worth reading. You really should post some of that on this site. That way more people will see the “real” Keo. Not just the Keo that gets “scooped” by a lowly part time blogger…..(and those boys on that other “global” rugby site).
16 Aug 2010, 11:05 am
@keo(keo)-25: didnt realise Jake was franchising winning ways keo? hows that going for you?
16 Aug 2010, 11:05 am
Why on earth except for for easy travel would we want to join our Northern cousins ? Just look at world rugby rankings and world cups the last decade and more. With very little exception the North are always fighting for the minor placings – do we really want to allow Oz and NZ to leave us behind as well and join the ranks of the also rans !
16 Aug 2010, 11:09 am
@Kietzphat(Kietzphat)-27: that is true. SA has the biggest appeal, but true to form Aus, somehow, got an even split of the pie.
16 Aug 2010, 11:14 am
You nailed it Keo……our biggest problem is the quality of our administration. A fish always rots from the head right?
Rugby league in the UK decided a few years back to change their season to a summer league. The game has grown since and does not need to compete against football in winter. Rugby needs a global season and its fairly obvious thanks to mother nature (the weather) where that change should happen.
16 Aug 2010, 11:17 am
Our administrators are too blame taking it up the arse for long! That’s what happens when you have spineless no idea cadres running the show
I think we should forget cricket and go for the global season and about time the Celtic nations stopped been so narrow minded an veto
Expansion every time it comes up
16 Aug 2010, 11:18 am
@TheTackler(TheTackler)-29:
whats the point of having SA in SANZAR if they are unhappy? im sure NZ+ AU wouldn’t put up with this if indeed they could do with out SA. but they have too put up with it because they need SA and as your comment implies they are happy with the status quo but if the situation changed it could get tricky.
in terms of putting together a viable competition similar to whats already in place
NZ & SA can do without AU
SA & AU can sort of put something together
AU & NZ have no hope in hell
16 Aug 2010, 11:25 am
@boktillzero(boktillzero)-36: I agree. The power of the DSTV revenue is too strong. With a competing satelight channel picking up steam I wonder if Multichoice will be the only bidder come renewal time….
16 Aug 2010, 11:26 am
Great article
16 Aug 2010, 11:29 am
Keo’s wrong. JON gave up on a lot of things. The “Sandton Option” is what was accepted in the end. Just about all the ARU got out of it was conferences and an extra side they were always going to get. NZRU only really took issue with the start time and didn’t gat that.
SARU demanded and got – Feb start. Guaranteed home playoff place for each nation (their condition of an expanded playoff and conferences). Not playing each foreign side (JON hated this idea, SARU wanted it to make the comp shorter). Break for June tests (ARU/NZRU both against). SA playing their TN matches first so there is room for a stronger Currie Cup play off. The inclusion of the Pumas, something SARU have always pushed for much more than the other two, as it evens up the relationship.
SARU did this, to protect their broadcast deal with Supersport/Naspers. They had to keep the June tests and make as little impact on Currie Cup as possible. The Naspers deal for June test/CC is worth R700m over 5 seasons and the Newscorp deal (of which SARU get 33% now, all from Naspers who put in 33% of the money, compared with 45% before) they get US$100m over 5 seasons. You can see that the deals are roughly equal. SARU have increased their TV revenue by 54% with these deals. While ARU moved up by 15% and NZRU by 10%. This is all without inflation. NZRU increased revenue by selling NPC/June tests separately like SARU did (but for only US$20 over 5 years), they wouldn’t have even had these to sell had SARU not got their way. ARU increased their revenue by a change in the % split in the Newscorp deal.
There was no increase in the value of Super rugby/TN. All reports included the Currie Cup/NPC/June test money in the deal. But when you just look at what the TN/Super rugby, it’s worth US$300m over 5 seasons now and the previous NewsCorp deal (with elements not in the current deal) was worth US$323m.
You can increase Super rugby, as SANZAR always do. But there just isn’t the corresponding increase in the value of the deal. The value is locked up in the TN, with Super rugby as the extra. I don’t think the environment is the same as when Keo was working with I guess van Rooyen? (who he liked to call “Brian the Lion” I recall). His ‘Rainbow Cup’ idea, was about replacing the Currie Cup – from late August to late October. In the mid 90s, a cup competition was played in this window in Wales. Both NH sides and SA sides play during this time. In the NH, club comps that aren’t that valuable and regularly change format take up a portion of this window.
I also disagree with Keo that the UK TV market is saturated. Wales doesn’t have a contract with Sky for November tests. Any deal for a new comp could include November tests. This would be very valuable to Sky UK.
If the above happened, then Super rugby could be repalced by an enlarged Currie Cup. This would be much more attractive to Naspers, who actually pay the bills. Could added the Argies perhaps, they are a bigger market than both the current partners. After that’s done, there could be a possible play off with NZ/Aus sides, before the TN.
This provides a better growth path than what we currently have.
16 Aug 2010, 11:30 am
aaah Keo it does not take a genius to realise that SA will be involved in sanzar for the next 5 years at least.
now moving how about those Lions this weekend?
16 Aug 2010, 11:32 am
@boktillzero(boktillzero)-36: Why should Oz or NZ care about whether the yarpies are happy or not? They’re not in the hospitality industry but in the rugby business. Your job is to make your opponents UNHAPPY by thrashing the pants off them in your encounters. So it doesn’t matter one iota how happy or how grumpy the yarpies are — the grumpier, the better, actually.
NZ and Oz have the better rivalry going (Bledisloe Cup) and they’ve done very nicely without SA in years gone by — even having a successful world cup in 1987 and 1991 without them.
16 Aug 2010, 11:43 am
*NZRU increased revenue by selling NPC/June tests separately like SARU did (but for only US$20 over 5 years) = should have been US$20m obviously.
The club comps that regularly change in the window I mention, are Cup comps, specifically the Anglo Welsh. Low value stuff. I think the Italian sides bid for the Celtic League membership didn’t make it also?
SARU would be wrong to try and replace Super rugby with anything more than an enlarged Currie Cup. With home and away games each SA side only play 4 Aussie/Kiwi teams, Super rugby is moving closer to that anyway. You have the NH link up from late August to late October, Cup/pool based competition and include November test window tie ins. Huge potential in that.
I think SARU were toying with this. Marinos has close links with the Welsh obviously. Hoskins was visited by the Welsh President or CEO (can’t remember which) when he became Prez (at his home in Westville no less). It’s mentioned in the 2007 programme for the first ‘Prince of Wales Cup’ wales v Boks game. Apparently they agreed on that match then supposed to be an annual event, a closer relationship and some other unmentioned things.
I’m convinced that was the plan B, if ARU/NZRU didn’t accept the “Sandton Option”, which surprisingly they did in full when they all met in Dublin.
16 Aug 2010, 11:44 am
@TheTackler(TheTackler)-41: Come now man in what way is it better when history says that it is a one sided rivalry with one team 60 odd match victories ahead of the other.
16 Aug 2010, 11:48 am
@TheTackler(TheTackler)-41:
unfortunately this is a business and business 101 you have to keep your partners happy.
i dont think SA are unhappy about losing they are unhappy at the way NZ AU conduct SANZAR issues for starters using the term yarpies.
at the risk of going round in circles
1987 -1991 didn’t feature the boks im not sure if Aus and NZ would have done so well if it had
the reason the Aussies and NZ can consistently win the bledisloe is because SA doesnt take part …(thats meant to be taken lightly by the way)
16 Aug 2010, 12:09 pm
@Archbishop Jeremiah Jeffery Jonnas(Archbishop Jeremiah Jeffery Jonnas)-39: @Archbishop Jeremiah Jeffery Jonnas(Archbishop Jeremiah Jeffery Jonnas)-42: Great posts, in fact posts of the day hands down. The only thing that I feel you haven;t conveyed strongly enough is how important the whole “regional concept” benefits Aus Rugby against us. We will never have more than 2 teams in the top 6 playoffs again, which if you look at this year’s table could easily have happened, and you will never have 2 home semis again. Like this year.
So basically you are interfering in a very simple system to even out the playing fields. And to me this was the golden carrot, the rest was (for me) extras.
16 Aug 2010, 12:24 pm
I agree that the SANZAR concept is the way to go for SA.
The one thing SANZAR should do that would strengthen all three SANZAR countries is to introduce a U19/20 or U21/U23 or A-side tri-nations. This might work at a loss but will be a longterm gain. However, if these games are played as curtain raisers or on the buy weekends it could generate enough interst to make it feasible.
16 Aug 2010, 12:26 pm
@Beertjie(Beertjie)-46: Not a bad call at all, Rupert, not a bad call at all….
16 Aug 2010, 12:31 pm
Super rugby is pretty stale and to be honest this 3 game system in the 3N is just stupid. Role on the 4 Nations, back to home and away tests and please can’t we have a two tier system in super rugby. What a ridiculous format, S15!
16 Aug 2010, 12:33 pm
@Archbishop Jeremiah Jeffery Jonnas(Archbishop Jeremiah Jeffery Jonnas)-42: ‘I think the Italian sides bid for the Celtic League membership didn’t make it also?’
Not sure if this is what you were asking or whether you were making another point, but the Italian sides were granted places in the Celtic League, they effectively bought them with Sky Italia money.
16 Aug 2010, 12:36 pm
@Ratel Brussow(Morne Steyn is under-rated)-48: 100% agree about the two tier system. They should keep the three conferences and only the top teams from a conference play in a super series.
What chance will the team ending 5th out of five in the home conference have in the rest of the competition?
16 Aug 2010, 12:42 pm
@keo(keo)-33:
If this is as you say, then we have administrators with the backbone of a jellyfish or the competence of a piece of cheese if they can’t use this to ensure we get what we want on our terms.
16 Aug 2010, 12:44 pm
KEO : A REQUEST AROUND CITINGS PLEASE
Keo, I’ve been commening on this site for 7/8/9 years (actually since your first week whenever that was)so can I ask a favour?
Please can you give us the FULL details, minutes etc on all citings. Who actually cites, why the charge, who then prosecutes, who defends, reasons for verdict, sentencing etc
I find that in all recent case there just seems to be a vacuum of info and then suddenly it’s “he got 3 weeks” and no real news supporting. We all have opinions on this ,and the fact is that recently the way things have gone really has looked suspiciously anti-SA…maybe if we had access to the full process we would view things differently.
Thanks.
16 Aug 2010, 12:44 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-45:
SARU wanted the regional playoffs as a condition of the expanded playoffs ARU wanted. The reasoning is that teams aren’t playing the same draw anymore (fellow local sides twice and 4 from each of the foreign nations), it is no longer the same draw. Some games are going to be more bonus point worthy than others, others are going to have it easier than others. this will change from year to year and isn’t like it was with Super 12 and 14. It’s a very big departure and is closer to NFL than anything in rugby.
SA wanted guaranteed income each season also, this is better for planning. There have only been two seasons SA didn’t have a semi finalist (2002/2003) and three seasons they had two sides in the semi (1996/2007/2010). They’ve never had more than that, so it’s a neutral for SARU, more insurance on what SA always get anyway.
NZ lose out from new playoff system, not SA. They’ve only missed the playoffs once (2001), have had two sides in the playoffs eight times (97/98/99/03/04/06/07/09). This will be harder for them to achieve now.
Aus get some benefit as since 2006 and the start of Super 14. They have made the semis three times (06/08/10) and only one final (08), this is a terrible return compared to before 2006 (only missed one playoff before that in 1998). It shows what expansion to Super 14 has actually done to Aus rugby.
The thing I did miss from those two posts that is significant. Is that the Pumas coming in, could force decoupling of Super rugby and TN TV rights. This is very important, as it’ll allow for comparison between different options AND the ability to sign up to one but not the other. SARU have long been supporters of the Argies, while ARU/NZRU have been very cold on the whole issue – obvious reason being it’s in SA interest but less so the other two. With the new Super rugby format, we may as well have just gone with a big full strength Currie Cup (maybe with Argie sides), with playoffs against Aus/NZ sides as an after thought. But the deal SANZAR gave was too good and meant SARU got a double TV rights pay out, where before they only had one.
SARU got an excellent deal from the new agreement. ARU an okay one. NZ, I’m not sure what they got tbh, but then you need to ask to get something.
16 Aug 2010, 12:55 pm
@Archbishop Jeremiah Jeffery Jonnas(Archbishop Jeremiah Jeffery Jonnas)-53: Thanks Arch, that does clarify things for me somewhat. You clearly have good info. Are you close to the Coal Face?
16 Aug 2010, 12:59 pm
@boktillzero(boktillzero)-44: Naah. The Ockers and the Poms and the Taffies and Frogs and Eyeties, Yanks and **** and Paddies and the Scotties don’t mind, so the Yarpies can’t be too precious or else you’ll be called the Africans. Wouldn’t that rattle your dags?
16 Aug 2010, 12:59 pm
@Big Hit(Big Hit)-49:
They were asking Italian clubs to stump up the money, 3m Euros I think it was. Sky don’t get much from adding them two. Last I heard, late ’09 early ’10, it had been canned as they didn’t have the money. I see they are in for the 2010-11 season though, confirmed in March this year.
My point was, that a “move north”. Would be nothing like it’s always reported by journs. It would be limited ot the late August to late October slot. With bigger Currie Cup moving into the Super 14 window. At the time the next SANZAR deal was being reworked, we had a SARU top dogs closely linked with the Welsh union, a non-expanded Celtic league and an Anglo-Welsh comp that was being shuit down. Sky UK for ages have wanted Welsh rugby on their books, especially home tests, but still don’t have it.
There is the money there and was a potential gap in the calender. As Italians had not been included and Anglo-Welsh was being reworked. Not convinced of either the Italians in the Celtic league or the Anglo-Welsh (as top leave anyway), long term. This is where SARU needs to put the effort in if they are serious.
16 Aug 2010, 13:06 pm
A load of spelling errors in there – *’shut down’/'calendar’/'top level’.
Meh, rushed the post. It was interesting to me that SARU had links with Wales during the last deal, a load of comps in the time frame they needed (late August to late October) were being reorganised. Both Anglo-Welsh and the Italians joining (for now) only being sorted after the SANZAR deal was done. And the ARU/NZRU caving in to the “Sandton Option” as it was called, the barely compromised position of SARU.
That was the real story imo. Was never reported. Even the actual breakdown of the new SANZAR deal and who got what was never reported.
16 Aug 2010, 13:15 pm
@Archbishop Jeremiah Jeffery Jonnas(Archbishop Jeremiah Jeffery Jonnas)-56: understood, some informative posts AJJJ.
16 Aug 2010, 13:36 pm
The sooner the ‘leadership’ is drawn and quartered and thrown away with last night’s bad curry the better.
South African rugby is taking a noticeable step backwards as will be glaringly obvious just by watching the Province/Bulls game on Saturday. The coaching methods employed by Mr Ludicrous is reminiscent of Northern Transvaal 80′s style bang ‘n crash ‘em into submission rubbish rugby. Talk about putting bodies on the line. The question is, why?
I have not see such utter tripe on a rugger pitch since the Cheetahs/Bulls draw a few seasons back. How did the Bulls go from brilliant to boring in only a few months. There is a divide in coaching methods within the Bulls camp that you could fly a Boeing 777 through.
The Lions played a brilliant game and looked innovative and fresh on attack. So did The Sharks. Both teams ‘strangely’ enough are being coached by Australasians. Look how intelligentky both teams play.
Owen Nkumane made a very diplomatic analysis after the Province/Bulls game and he was right on the money when he suggested that the safe rugby played by both sides is not really helping their cause in the long run. Well spotted Owen.
It’s much the same with South African rugby. Unless the sick, lame and lazy brigade is replaced, the farce within South African rugby will continue down that pot-holed road to further embarrassment and shame.
16 Aug 2010, 13:48 pm
I suppose old keow didn’t wnat to give us too many facts but the current deal probably ends in 2015 or so? Lots’s can happen before then and NZ will probably offer a few financial sweeteners to SA for the SNAFU lads back pockets and all will be well.
Going to the NH under current abysmal management at all levels just means we’ll get stuffed around there.
16 Aug 2010, 15:23 pm
That is something I also noticed about Bulls/Stormers game on Saturday and found it a bit backwards rugby and did remind me of the “old Transvaal game”
I also find the current tri nations boring; bring on 4 nations to stir things up a bit.
16 Aug 2010, 15:25 pm
at least Hoskins is fighting against the cheating
But against a 2/3 majority its not easy
16 Aug 2010, 17:21 pm
It seems that moving to another competition is a moot point. If the administration is poor from our side, why swop a 33% say with Sanzar to a 20% or less say if we join some of the Northern unions. Basically, lets clean house first, then judge on the quality afterwards.
16 Aug 2010, 19:02 pm
The French solved the problem of Summer rugby heat by playing the August Top 14 games at night. Simple! SA could do the same if they wanted to join the H Cup/6 nations.
A club competition that included SA the countries already involved in the H Cup would not be such a huge change and would more than likely be welcomed. Add one more group to the H Cup or one more team per group. Of course the Celtic countries objected to the proposal of France and England dumping them to play a competition with SA. I doubt the Italians were thrilled either. Include teams from these countries (some of the best sides in Europe) and the problem is solved. The big stumbling block that I see to the club sides in Europe wold be the extra travel cost. But with extra income from tv revenue this could be compensated.
If SA wanted to play in European competitions the countries involved could figure out a way to manage this. SA does have options.
16 Aug 2010, 21:08 pm
@Boksarenumber4(Boksarenumber1)-62: Hoskins isn’t fighting; he’s only bluffing. Everyone knows that. One more reason for his every utterance to be ignored. Nobody heeds the “cry wolf” any longer. Why would they?
16 Aug 2010, 21:11 pm
@Intotouch(Intotouch)-64: The Brits and Europeans don’t want the yarpies in their tournaments. End of story. Thanks but no thanks.
16 Aug 2010, 21:19 pm
@TheTackler(TheTackler)-66: thats not what i am hearing.
16 Aug 2010, 21:55 pm
The Tackler, I am European and i think that we would be lucky to have you. Who doesn’t respect South African rugby? My French and Irish friends think the same. Only the Scots I think would be wary given their objection to the Italians joining the Magners.
16 Aug 2010, 22:51 pm
@Intotouch(Intotouch)-68: Egads. While Tickles might admire your openness about your own origins, he certainly won’t appreciate you making assumptions about his. Not that they’re the wrong assumptions, but still.
17 Aug 2010, 00:03 am
Well said – good article. If our administrators were actually worth their weight , and could pull their finger out once in a while, we could get a decent and evenhanded treatment in the 3N and S15.
17 Aug 2010, 00:49 am
@Intotouch(Intotouch)-68: Never, ever, have you or I read of even a single overture made by ANY of the Brit/Euro union to having SA join up with any of their competitions.
Not ever.
That clearly means they don’t want SA.
17 Aug 2010, 01:09 am
A lot of people here saying that NZ and Aus can’t survive without SANZAR. I honestly don’t believe they are in any worse position than we are with regard to us leaving the competition. If SARU think they can leave and that it will effect Aus and NZ worse than it will effect SA rugby then they are kidding themselves.
If SARU leaves the Super 15, Australia and NZ will set up a competition (probably a super 10 or 12) and may even bring in some Pacific Island teams. The TV rights in both Aus and NZ will be worth a little more given all the games can be played ayt decent hours and they will continue the Tri-nations with Argentina.
The competition will not be as good as before and the money will be less, but they will survive with 2 International tournaments. What will we have?? The CC and thats about it. In the long term this could benefit the largest potential audience (in terms of cashflow) in SANZAR -the Aussies. Rather than trying to compete with other codes that play all their games in local viewing hours, they will now offer viewers a team they can follow week to week and see every game – much like AFL and NRL. It could possibly help them gain and build following.
17 Aug 2010, 01:41 am
Alternative options? There is only one other option and that is playing in the NH. Or SA rugby can play in the Aisan 6 nations lol. With all the politics that surrounds SA rugby does anyone think that SA rugby will bend to the requirements of the NH? Because that’s is what will be required of SA to change their entire set up to and do what the NH want them to do, they won’t change their set up just to accommodate SA rugby because lets be honest here NH rugby doesn’t need SA rugby. SA rugby will have to bend over and start kissing some HN butt.
If you think the OZ and NZ moan ad give SA flack just imagine the type of flack you’ll get in the NH. You’ll be getting Irish refs all the time.
17 Aug 2010, 01:48 am
@jeest(jeest)-72:
I said it yesterday, if we pull out News Corp will have some spare change to the tune of $400m. Surely that can easily be used to start a new Super X and 3N without SA.
The notion or hope that Oz rugby will die and NZ rugby will weaken without SA is almost as riduculous as saying PDivvie is a good coach.
17 Aug 2010, 01:50 am
@Kiwisamoan(Kiwisamoan)-73:
Of course all this is based on SA being a power in world rugby come 2015…talk about counting your chickens!
17 Aug 2010, 03:09 am
Hmmmm, if you are a big financial fish in a small SH financial pond and bare your teeth, the smaller fish will be careful and a little respectful of your power. If however you are a small financial fish in a big NH financial pond and bare your teeth, stamp your tail, etc, the big fish will either tell you to F off or eat you for dinner.
17 Aug 2010, 03:27 am
I completely understand why the Boks would want to leave SANZAR. If you get beaten up by the Kiwis and Aussies virtually every year to the point of utter embarrassment, then why wouldn’t you leave to go play with teams that won’t bury you every Saturday?
The Boks are just tired of losing.
17 Aug 2010, 03:29 am
@Slartibartfast(Slartibartfast)-74: I think someone threw around the figure of 1 billion rang in this thread. $400m makes a billion rand look a bit worthless – I’ll take your word on the figure anyway as I really don’t know.
Like I said – they aren’t going to miss SARU as much as everyone thinks they will. Aussie is by far the largest potential money maker in SANZAR. Whether or not that potential will ever be realised is another question.
17 Aug 2010, 03:30 am
@jeest(jeest)-72: What will we have?? The CC and thats about it.
Sounds to me like the apartheid era all over again. Has the wheel turned that quickly?
17 Aug 2010, 03:47 am
@jeest(jeest)-78:
My understanding is that the News Corp deal is worth US$400m, SA cut is one third of that, maybe were the R1b comes from, I don’t know.
Rulz summed it up best yesterday, if SA pulls out everyone loses, no winners. It is about picking up the pieces afterwards.
I agree with you about Oz as well, they seem to be taking a hammering of late in Oz but remember the WC is in their 7th State (or is that 4th territory, I am never sure?) next year.
17 Aug 2010, 03:55 am
@kwas(kwas)-79:
People seems to be happy with the CC and tours, they seem to have very short memories though. When last did we have a full strenght team from the NH touring, outside of the Lions every 4 years the winter tours seem to be a resting and testing period for them.
Keep in mind, if we drop out of SANZAR we will be the only team with free time. Us dropping does not mean the NH will suddenly change their plans to accomodate us and first of all, do longer tours and send their best teams!
17 Aug 2010, 04:13 am
@Slartibartfast(Slartibartfast)-81: If dropping out of SANZAR is just a way to rest our players then it is not such a bad idea. We complain about mentally and physically tired players all the time. If we have no S14 or TN, then we should be well rested to smash the NH teams on the EOYT.
There appears to be a method to the madness.
17 Aug 2010, 04:18 am
@kwas(kwas)-82:
If the only aim is to beat the NH teams in November, then so be it. But where will the money come from and what will we lose in not playing against NZ and Oz on a regular basis?
17 Aug 2010, 04:32 am
@Slartibartfast(Slartibartfast)-83: We can still have test series against them? It is not as if we are severing all ties with the ABs and Aussies.
17 Aug 2010, 04:37 am
@Intotouch(Intotouch)-64: agree it would be really good to have them in the Heineken Cup if only because the French clubs only take it seriously if they win their early games. The tournament would burgeon if the SA provinces were to join and to be honest some of the potential clashes are mouth-watering to a rugby supporter. Who wouldn’t like to watch the Bulls play Munster, Western Province play Wasps or the Sharks play Stade Francais or…etc
17 Aug 2010, 04:38 am
@kwas(kwas)-84:
Hehe kwas, so we call them cheats, throw our toys out the cot and don’t sign another contract and you expect them to help us with tours?
17 Aug 2010, 04:43 am
@Slartibartfast(Slartibartfast)-86: Common, we had one plonker call them cheats, which he in true plonker fashion later retracted (or blamed on being misquoted). As for not signing another contract, surely we don’t have to sign every contract that is put in front of us? If we don’t like it, we look for another partner/contract.
17 Aug 2010, 04:47 am
@kwas(kwas)-87:
You forgot about the war declaration…
17 Aug 2010, 05:17 am
@kwas(kwas)-84: They might be too busy with the new Aus/NZ/Arg tri-series, expanded Aus/NZ interclub comp, and the existing NH home & away tours to fit in a trip to SA even if they didn’t feel like giving SARU the ‘finger’.
I still can’t see how SA playing a constant string of weaker international teams is going to increase interest in SA. It might look good for a season or two of wins, but after that the boredom will set in and the fans will require a diet of real rugby. If I had to watch the AB’s constantly play 3 teams that have never beaten them, one that hasn’t beaten them for 60 years, one that has won 3 out of 18 games in the past 20 years, and one that is a bit more competitive and good to watch, I wouldn’t be watching as much rugby as I do now.
NZ vs SA is in most years a fight for world rugby supremacy. In the years that it isn’t, it is usually the Aussies that you need to beat. The NH teams get to the top of the list about once in a lifetime, and usually don’t stay there very long.
Imagine an expanded NZ NPC comp to bring in Aussie teams, with in country round-robin comps followed by the top 3 or so from NZ and Aus fighting out the title. Maybe even a Samoa team playing in the NZ comp and a Fiji/Tonga etc team playing in the Aussie comp. Would provide the missing layer in Aus, create wide viewer interest, and have a mouth watering finals series. Filling the rugby window with quality product in place of S14 would not be such an issue, and all the money (fans, broadcast, sponsers etc) that went into S14 income would be redirected to this new, fresh comp. The only difference would be the missing SA revenues, but they already take much of that back as their largest share of SANZAR broadcast income anyway. Then imagine trying to get 90,000 SA fans to come and watch SA-Italy or SA-Scotland etc. Maybe SARU’s revenues would even shrink??
Nothing about SA leaving SANZAR makes much sense, but then some of SARU’s current representatives don’t always make much sense either.
17 Aug 2010, 05:29 am
@kwas(kwas)-87: NZ and OZ will not want anything to do with SA rugby why would they? Lucky for NZ we have the pulling power of the all blacks and I’m not trying to sound big head but the all blacks are the biggest brand in world rugby.
17 Aug 2010, 05:41 am
@Slartibartfast(Slartibartfast)-88:
I think there are times when NZ/Oz look at SA and shake their collective heads………we do ourselves with some of the unprofessional BS that goes on……however, what p ssss me off is this “we are superior to you Africans’ type atitude that constantly permiates out of the Pacific. The media actualy like the smell of their own farts in NZ/OZ. It’s almost a snobby type aproach to the Sanzar partnership. If there was a viable oportunity elsewhere I would say “go for it”. I do not see a viable option elsewhere unfortunately………so looks like we are stuck with the snobs. If that be the case, then at least choose some administrators with the gonads to challenge in the boardrooms, rather than whinge in the press……….
17 Aug 2010, 05:43 am
@Kiwisamoan(Kiwisamoan)-90:
Yeah the pulling power of the AB’s would work well with a three test series agains the **** and a 5 round Bledisloe hey?
17 Aug 2010, 05:43 am
**** = J a ps
17 Aug 2010, 05:48 am
@whatever(whatever)-91:
I hear you Boet, but remember who sits around the table with them! Can you blame them feeling a little superior?
17 Aug 2010, 05:52 am
@whatever(whatever)-93: Reckon North harbour are going to improve? I thought they would be competitive this year
17 Aug 2010, 05:59 am
@whatever(whatever)-92: Yea the pulling power that fills a 85,000 seat staduim in Milan a city that knows absolutely nothing about rugby and is football made. Same pulling power that drew 50,000 in Japan and filled the hong kong stadium. Just telling it how I see it.
The boks can start their own with a 3 series tests against Zimbabwe and Namibia.
17 Aug 2010, 06:15 am
@Waster(Waster)-95:
Mate, North harbour are looking kuk
How about the fact that Northland and Southland are in the top three on the log. I know it’s early days, but still…….
17 Aug 2010, 06:15 am
@Kiwisamoan(Kiwisamoan)-96:
Do you like giving yourself BJ’s ?
17 Aug 2010, 06:19 am
@whatever(whatever)-97: Yeah I am so pleased to see the taniwha doing well along with southland and counties, I hope canterbury don’t breeze in and take the shield off the stags.
17 Aug 2010, 06:25 am
@whatever(whatever)-98: No I’d prefer your mum does.
17 Aug 2010, 06:27 am
@whatever(whatever)-98: how is hore by the way?
17 Aug 2010, 06:30 am
@Kiwisamoan(Kiwisamoan)-100:
Come on kids, play nicely or else you will be send to your rooms…
17 Aug 2010, 06:31 am
@Slartibartfast(Slartibartfast)-102:
I was just trying to make a point and that nob had to pull out the personal attack. Oh well its all good fun at the end of the day.
17 Aug 2010, 06:34 am
@Kiwisamoan(Kiwisamoan)-103:
No it is not! Name calling just opens the door and soon every second post is rubbish, bringing in family members does not help, makes it worse.
17 Aug 2010, 06:34 am
Bottom line is that having the best playing the best is always going to be more compulsive viewing than having the best playing the rest.
The current SARU management seem to want/need to drag their SANZAR partners into their internal domestic politics. The current relationship is ‘damaged’ because the NZRU objected to PDiV suggesting that they were conspiring with the RFU, refs etc to somehow cheat their way to beating the Bok’s. The ARU looked at it objectively and agreed that type of behaviour is unacceptable for a senior representative of one of the partners, and should be dealt with according to the AGREED sanzar process. The head of SARU then calls this a ‘declaration of war’ to the press. Is this even remotely sensible behaviour, or is it just an attempt to move SA fans attention away from deficiencies in the current SARU/BOK management set-up? Lets see what new utterances we get if the Boks lose another game on saturday. It would be nice to hear a ‘well done to the opposition’ if they win, without another new theory about how SA get cheated. Most of the fans seem able to say it when it is due, so why can’t the management.
17 Aug 2010, 06:36 am
@Kiwisamoan(Kiwisamoan)-101:
Yeah mate, at least I know who mine is, you fu kwit!
17 Aug 2010, 06:38 am
@aliboy(aliboy)-105:
The “well dones” last year were few and far between mate……….
17 Aug 2010, 06:41 am
@whatever(whatever)-106: hahahaha ok Slartibartfas right thats enough rubbish. End of the day I don’t think it will be in anyones best interest if they split. I think its just been a bad year for the boks and people are just talking it up besides its another 5 years away, a lot can change during that time.
17 Aug 2010, 06:41 am
@whatever(whatever)-106:
Kom Boet, move on.
17 Aug 2010, 06:44 am
@Slartibartfast(Slartibartfast)-109:
Par mense op hierdie blog is net hoenernaaiers……
17 Aug 2010, 06:46 am
@whatever(whatever)-110:
Is ok, hulle val kom oor twaalf maande, dan lag ons lekker.
17 Aug 2010, 06:50 am
@Slartibartfast(Slartibartfast)-111:
ja swaer
17 Aug 2010, 07:13 am
@whatever(whatever)-107: Did G Henry come out and say that SARU were conspiring to cheat, or that the Bok’s had the referees in their pockets? Did anyone else from the NZRU or ARU management make statements like those? Fans will always be fans and accuse the opposition of illegal tactics and blah, blah, blah, but when the senior representatives of a national body openly accuse the opposition of conspiring with the refs etc to cheat it is a quite different level of statement.
The Boks played smart rugby in 2009. It was cleverly worked out and excellently executed. But, it wasn’t the type of rugby that grabs the hearts and minds of Kiwi and Aus supporters so they moaned about it rather than appreciating it. If the Boks had run the opposition off their feet with ball in hand, they would have been given more credit by the Aus & NZ fans. Doesn’t mean that the Bok’s didn’t do the right thing, just means that it wasn’t grabbing hearts and minds in Aus and NZ. On the other hand I would expect that the English supporters would have found it thrilling to watch.
17 Aug 2010, 07:28 am
@aliboy(aliboy)-113:
Who scored the most tries in 2009?
17 Aug 2010, 07:35 am
Aliboy,
South Africans are a bit simple, too simple for them even to be accused of nobbling the refs. NZ kakked themselves after 2009 to the extent that P O’ Bumchum was brought on board. Remember how he scampered like a whipped cur to beg forgiveness for the refereeing from his AB masters after the Italy game that NZ won? That not cheating?
Of course it isn’t; it’s the “professional game”, “gamesmanship” etc and until SA wakes up and plays it, we’ll continue to have patchy results.
17 Aug 2010, 07:55 am
I don’t know, but I assume from the question that the answer is the Boks. It doesn’t change the fact however that the style of play, although well thought out and executed, didn’t appeal to the Aus/NZ public, and this was reflected in the views/moans/attendances of the fans.
When the best option for attack is to give the football to the opposition (probably for the first time in the history of the game), there is a real mindset change required for the fans to appreciate the game, and all that happened in Aus/NZ is that the fans decided they weren’t enjoying watching the game as much as they used to. The Bok fans of course celebrated getting the wins, and so they should have because they played to the rules extremely well. They also called some of the Aus/NZ fans moaners etc, and fair enough because it was true. The team that plays best to the rules, conditions, and ref applicable for the game usually deserves and gets the win.
There are not too many Bok fans even on this forum however that seem to be actively calling for the rules to be revised back to the 2009 rules, so I assume that they too are enjoying the spectacle of more ball in hand rugby, even if their team is still adapting to the revised game plan they probably require.
17 Aug 2010, 10:07 am
@whatever(whatever)-114:
SA scored 1 more try than NZ,sooooooooo?
@husky(husky)-115:
SA been playing the profeesional game along time now,no one else gives the refs gold watches,now thats professionalism
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.