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
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 » Show All
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.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.