FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Calling SARFU's bluff?

Calling SARFU's bluff?

Started by Beeno11 REPLIES227 VIEWS· 13 Feb 2012, 02:00
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
13 Feb 2012, 18:41
#1
13 Feb 2012, 18:41#1

Keo get it wrong. See my next post

South Africa’s five existing Super Rugby franchises have threatened to pull out of the competition in 2013 – if six South African teams are not accommodated. MARK KEOHANE says Sanzar needs to call their bluff.

Once again the tail is wagging the dog. Once again Saru’s leadership is being shown as pathetic and without bite.

Oregan Hoskins, the greatest of disappointments as a leader, needs to stand tall and dismiss the threats of the five South African regions. He won’t and the regions will continue to hold the national governing body to ransom, when it should be the other way around.

Rapport newspaper’s sports editor Rudolph Lake wrote of a meeting between the five regions, a meeting sanctioned by Saru, in which they would look at solutions to the Kings’ entry into Super Rugby in 2013. The same regions, whose leadership had unanimously accepted the Kings’ 2013 entry more than two years ago, now feel the need for crisis meetings, in which the only solution is to accommodate six South African teams.

Now comes the threat that all five South African regions will boycott the tournament if they don’t get their own way. Any proper leadership will tell you they have no option but to play in the tournament. If they don’t they are in breach of existing contracts, they lose their primary source of income and they won’t have a region, let alone players.

It makes for a dramatic headline. It sounds spectacular. But there is no way they should even be in a position to make such a demand.

Sanzar’s board members should be laughing at South African administrators who are nothing but an embarrassment with their insular agendas and motives.

On Sunday the City Press sports section was led by an expose of the Golden Lions Rugby Union’s finances. Leading Media24 investigative journalist Jacques Pauw reveals that the Lions liabilities exceeded assets by R46.6 million in 2007, by R49.6 million in 2008, by R63 million in 2009 and by R73 million in 2010. It shows the Lions owing R38 million to Absa for an overdraft facility, R18 million to businessmen Robert Gumede and Ivor Ichikowitz, R14 million to Saru, R5 million to former coach Dick Muir, R6.8 million to the Leopards Rugby Union and R4.5 million to the Pumas Rugby Union.

Who are the Lions to threaten a boycott of the tournament?

Hoskins confirmed to Lake he had received a letter from the five regions with the threat of the boycott and that he was ‘shocked and disappointed’.

Come on, Regan. Show some leadership. You can’t always be shocked and disappointed. Sending the letter to the other nine provinces for input is also not about leadership, but more denial.

If the five ‘traditional’ provinces don’t want to play in Super Rugby, then kick them out and play the next five. Forget about provincial identities and focus on the players. The players will move to where the playing opportunity is.

The five traditional unions, among them the cash-strapped Lions and Cheetahs, have no position of strength when it comes to Super Rugby participation.

The bluff to force an expansion of Super Rugby from 15 to 16 teams and six South African teams should not be tolerated within Sanzar. If SA does not play ball, as per the agreed Sanzar deal and broadcasting arrangement, then Sanzar and the broadcasters should sue Saru and the respective regions/provinces.

What we are seeing here is how administrators in South African rugby have always conducted their business, be it by bullying or bluffing. The threat to withdraw should be a threat from Sanzar to kick them out.

Hoskins, in his time as Saru president, has never made a hard decision to show he is in charge. He has failed transformation and failed at everything that requires a decision and potential confrontation.

Don’t expect this situation to be any different, although I’d like to think those wizards in New Zealand and Australia have slightly more business acumen and a bigger set of balls to tell South Africa’s traditional five to F-off and stop their shenanigans.

Saru should have dealt with who falls out long before they gave the Kings the OK to play in the 2013 tournament. If it is on historical performance then the Lions must go. And if you look at their finances they should have gone ages ago.


 

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
13 Feb 2012, 18:47
#2
13 Feb 2012, 18:47#2

Interesting reposnse from Baylion

 

Mark Keohane’s bias is showing and this article is an emotional outburst to express his anti-Lions feelings. Not a very well thought through bit of gutter journalism with side swipes everywhere but no real substance. South Africa’s five existing Super Rugby franchises have threatened to pull out of the competition in 2013 – if six South African teams are not accommodated. MARK KEOHANE writes Sanzar needs to call their bluff. Once again the tail is wagging the dog. Once again SARU’s leadership is being shown as pathetic and without bite. Oregan Hoskins, the greatest of disappointments as a leader, needs to stand tall and dismiss the threats of the five South African regions. He won’t and the regions will continue to hold the national governing body to ransom, when it should be the other way around. The Rapport Newspaper’s sports editor Rudolf Lake wrote of a meeting between the five regions, a meeting sanctioned by SARU, in which they would look at solutions to the Kings’ entry into Super Rugby in 2013. The same regions, whose leadership had unanimously accepted the Kings’ 2013 entry more than two years, now feel the need for crisis meetings, in which the only solution is to accommodate six South African teams. What were the conditions to their acceptance? I am certain that none of them would have accepted suicide at an option, which is what SARU expects – “which one of you five will fall on your sword to make space for a politically motivated inferior region to join Super Rugby?”  (Exactly so!!!) Now comes the threat that all five South African regions will boycott the tournament if they don’t get their own way. Any proper leadership will tell you they have no option but to play in the tournament. Actually they have. Each of these franchises are independent legal entities, and as their franchise agreement apparently expires at the end of 2012 they can set up their own professional body to run their competitions and thereby marginalise SARU. In addition, with 60% of SANZAR media money coming from SA they would have a fair bit of clout. If they don’t they are in breach of existing contracts, they lose their primary source of income and they won’t have a region, let alone players. With the franchise agreements expiring soon they probably won’t be in breach of contract and since they have ALL SA’s top domestic rugby players contracted to them they are in a very powerful position to “go it alone” outside of SARU. It makes for a dramatic headline. It sounds spectacular, but there is no way they should even be in a position to make such a demand. SANZAR’s board members should be laughing at South African administrators who are nothing but an embarrassment with their insular agendas and motives. A bit of sense if you talk about Cheeky Watson and the SARU administrators. The City Press’s sports section is led by an expose of the Lions Rugby Union finances. Leading Media24 investigative journalist Jacques Pauw reveals that the Lions liabilities exceeded assets by R46.6 million in 2007, by R49.6 million in 2008, by R63 million in 2009 and by R73million in 2010. It shows the Lions owing R38million to ABSA for an overdraft facility, R18million to businessmen Robert Gumede and Ivor Ichikowitz, R14million to SARU, R5million to former coach **** Muir, R6.8million to Leopards Rugby Union and R4.5million to the Pumas Rugby Union. This is old news and have been laid to rest by the Lions and their investors and their sponsors. While nobody argues that the Lions have debts the position is now said to be under control. And is Mark Keohane so naive to think that the other unions and franchises don’t have debts? Does he really think the other unions and franchises are squeaky clean? Who are the Lions to threaten a boycott of the tournament? It is not only the Lions that are threatening a boycott. It is all five franchises. You know, the guys who actually bring in most of the money into SARU and SANZAR? The guys who have contracted most of SA’s top rugby players? Hoskins confirmed to Lake he had received a letter from the five regions with the threat of the boycott and that he was ‘shocked and disappointed’. Come on Regan. Show some leadership. You can’t always be shocked and disappointed. Sending the letter to the other nine provinces for input is also not about leadership, but more denial. If the five ‘traditional’ provinces don’t want to play in Super Rugby, then kick them out and play the next five. Forget about provincial identities and focus on the players. The players will move to where the playing opportunity is. With all the top players contracted to the five franchises where are you going to get players? And Keohane seem to forget that it is only the three Kings unions that aren’t tied into the franchises. So who will be the next five? The five traditional unions, among them the cash-strapped Lions and Cheetahs, have no position of strength when it comes to Super Rugby participation. Again, they are actually in a very strong position. They can actually step out of SARU and go it alone. They have the players, they bring in the money (and money will go where the demand is), they have the companies and organisations set up. The bluff to force an expansion of Super 15 to 16 teams and six South African teams should not be tolerated within SANZAR. If SA does not play ball, as per the agreed SANZAR deal and broadcasting arrangement, then SANZAR and the broadcasters should sue SARU and the respective regions/provinces. It’s about not including the Kings at the expense of an existing, stronger franchise. SARU administrators are the ones who didn’t do their homework before promising the Kings a spot. At last something to agree with! SANZAR should tell SARU that they should sort themselves out and not make promises that they cannot keep! What we are seeing here is how administrators in South African rugby have always conducted their business, be it by bullying or bluffing. The threat to withdraw should be a threat from SANZAR to kick them out. The fact is that SANZAR wouldn’t want to kick the SA franchises out but I’m sure they would like to get rid of the incompetent SARU administrators. Without the SA money there will be no SANZAR and without the Big Five there will be a lot less media money. Hoskins, in his time as SARU president, has never made a hard decision to show he is in charge. He has failed transformation and failed at everything that requires a decision and potential confrontation. Don’t expect this situation to be any different, although I’d like to think those wizards in New Zealand and Australia have slightly more business acumen and a bigger set of balls to tell South Africa’s traditional five to F-off and stop their shenanigans. With the Kiwi franchises virtually all bankrupt and 60% of SANZAR media income coming from SA they aren’t really in a position to tell anyone to f-off. However SARU’s incompetence and political agendas must be wearing their them down so that they will feel it worth while to explore Japanese and American money for their future. Maybe it is time for the SA unions and franchises to stage a palace revolution in SARU. The “big five’s shenanigans” comes from SARU’s inability to stand up to Cheeky Watson and his political cronies SARU should have dealt with who falls out long before they gave the Kings the okay to play in the 2013 tournament. The only bit of real sense in this diatribe. If it is on historical performance then the Lions must go. And if you look at their finances they should have gone ages ago. As opposed to the Kings? Who had to be bailed out, with their respective unions, by SARU? Who have never been a power in SA rugby? Who have done nothing for rugby development in their region in years except whinge about not being in Super Rugby while unions with less have done more?   Seems a time bomb is ticking away here. If these five unions stick together and SANZAR wont budge something is going to break!
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news