One sometimes has to wonder, open mouthed, at the myopia of people within rugby administration and their inability to recognise how to be relevant in modern day society in South Africa and the rest of the world, especially when the game of rugby exposes the raw nerves and synapses of the nation.
The obsessive, compulsive folly of a few will decimate the branding and value of their flagship icon, the Springbok, and the business of SA Rugby, because, quite simply, they are unable to recognise trends and strategically position themselves for the future.
How can one possibly talk Rugby World Cups of 2011, 2015 and 2019, when so much needs to be over hauled and addressed to make rugby normal in South Africa. Do not think for a moment my position is about black or white; it is not. It is about right and wrong.
Conversely, Butana Komphela recognises the potent cauldron of South Africa’s passion — for rugby, its players and supporters — that fuels its fans and is using the Springbok and the symbol as the lightning rod to strike fear into the inner sanctum of a white market segment, in an attempt to exorcise racism and bigotry from rugby and sport. It is not a particularly sophisticated approach, but Komphela’s patience has run out and he has become an agent of change as South African rugby administration has resisted change at incredible cost to itself and has now done so, at its own peril.
Some ten years ago and two years after the 1995 Rugby World Cup, with the change and emergence of the new South Africa, the airline of South Africa, known as SAA or SAL, with the orange, white and blue lines around the equator of each aircraft emblazoned with the Flying Springbok, had to make itself relevant to the new South Africa.
Nelson Mandela was South Africa’s icon president and had pulled off the most amazing and spectacular bridge building coup of South Africans by wearing the No.6 Springbok jersey at the 1995 Rugby World Cup and unleashed South Africans’ passion for their country and sport rugby. What he did was defuse a social time bomb that would have had cataclysmic effects on the country.
At the time, I was approached in New York of all places, to establish a team to bid against 19 other international and national corporate identity companies, in strategically repositioning the airline of South Africa for the future. I did this by taking the best indigenous marketing talent in South Africa and merging this with the best international talent in the airline industry and reached down into the heart and soul of the new South Africa to discover the DNA of what drives South Africans — and won the bid.
Thus was born the metamorphosis of the airline of the old South Africa, to the Flag Carrier of the New South Africa, that today favourably competes right up there with British Airways, Lufthansa, Cathay and Singapore — the world’s best airlines.
We thoroughly researched, the relevance of South Africa’s Fauna (Springbok and Big Five), Flora (Disa & Protea), the new National flag and the icon most synonymous with Africa, the Sun.
In a national competition to determine the sentiment of South Africans from all walks of life, run in two national English and Afrikaans newspapers, we called for proposed designs. Incredibly 98% of the submissions embraced elements of, or all of the South African national flag. It was for good reason, as the national flag became the symbol of unity, harmony, vibrancy and patriotism amongst South Africans. Thus was born the “Horizon Mark” a speed version of the national flag with the sun, that today Flies the Spirit of Our Nation to the World.
Interestingly, the Call Sign for South African Airways at all of its destinations and airports and air traffic control towers around the world is “Springbok“.
Similarly, SA Rugby is faced with having to reinvent itself and making rugby a game for all South Africans.
Incredibly, SA Rugby had such a moment when they introduced a new rugby franchise into the Eastern Cape on June 8 2005 and barely six months later, people within SA Rugby aborted this project so horribly and painfully, they are today facing the grotesque consequences and financial liabilities of their actions and still it is not yet over and worse is yet to come, if no action is taken.
It could have been the salvation of rugby had SA Rugby continued in an honourable and committed fashion in taking the game to the people. Instead it has cost SA Rugby R27,100,000.00 (R5.6m in funding + R8m in legal fees + R13.5m in an ill fated buy out of 50% of the SEC rugby unions) just to keep the Eastern Cape out of Super Rugby, for the preservation and exclusivity of the Big Five. This is funding that could have gone into the game. Instead, this and tens of millions of rand have been sucked out of the SA Rugby treasury to the detriment of all 14 unions.
So do not condemn Komphela for his tirade. The people that have put SA Rugby in a downward spiral and in this incredibly vulnerable situation, stripping out SA Rugby’s cash reserves, are two of SA Rugby’s advisors, the Bulls, Sharks, Lions, Cheetahs and the Stormers. They are the ones to blame for taking SA Rugby down this road and exposing the organisation and its 14 unions to enormous crippling liabilities.
But even more alarmingly, you have to realise that SA Rugby is still not cured and will continue to get sicker and sicker and become terminally ill, if it does not take drastic action and remedy this situation, immediately. This situation did not happen overnight, nor suddenly occur. As in any event, it has been a gradual and persistent process of erosion, violation of SA Rugby’s own Constitution, that has brought SA Rugby to the brink of disaster.
Sports Portfolio Committee chairman Butana Komphela told delegates at a National Sports Conference in Durban on Thursday, that “the Springbok divides us. We have a responsibility to unite our country on one national emblem. Minister, I want you to observe the arrogance of white people on the Springbok emblem,” he said.
Komphela said that there could be “no negotiation” on the Springbok emblem. When the floor was opened to the delegates, many speakers called for a resolution removing the Springbok emblem to be passed as soon as possible.
What Komphela was screaming out was not hate speech, but that he and people like him have been hurt, humiliated and insulted by non action. The simple reason for this outburst (and there have been many warning signs), is that the Springbok and rugby in South Africa was not shared by all and has caused and continues to cause diabolical pain and suffering of humiliation. I have seen it first hand and been shamed and frustrated at how my fellow South Africans have wrongly treated their fellow rugby playing brethren.
My view is that Danie Craven’s statement years ago that “no blackman will ever play for the Springboks”, is at the root of this furore and the longer this statement remains unanswered, with no apology, the greater the divide in the game and the country will be about the Springbok. It make no sense to leave this to fester, as it will erupt time and again with dire consequences.
But then to Craven’s credit in 1988, after this statement, it was he who reached out to the ANC and met them in Zimbabwe to discuss transforming the administrative body and the unified South African Rugby Football Union - SARFU - was formed in 1992.
So why is it so hard to be consultative in October 2008? Just do it.
Rugby is a game of honour, courage and character amongst team members, with respect shown for the opposition, whether they win or lose. It is a noble game and one of immense passion and pride. The SA Rugby Constitution is supposed to protect and uphold these ideals and the people at SA Rugby and within the Presidents Council, are supposed to be the custodians of the Constitution.
The solution for SA Rugby, to make rugby great in South Africa and SA Rugby strong, is not through open warfare, but by being proactive and taking immediate curative steps with the implementation of a bold formula to sweep up all rugby loving supporters, to heal these deep divisions within rugby in our country.
This is not about the Springbok. This is about being a good, honourable and fair South African. Proud to be South African and Proud to play Rugby for South Africa and for South Africans.
Will SA Rugby be able to step forward, rise to this challenge and launch an intervention to sort this out?
There is a new leadership in place at SA Rugby that can halt this siege on rugby in South Africa with widespread solutions and implementation of these solutions, not in months, but in days.
The responsibility for salvaging rugby and the dignity of the sport, is now firmly theirs. Can they do it?
This entry was posted
on Friday, October 10th, 2008 at 12:04 am and is filed under Other Sports, Rugby.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
61 Responses to “SA Rugby ambushed with the culling of the Springbok”
It is an interesting perspective and you cannot easily fault it.
I do however believe simply removing the Springbok emblem will only treat the symptom not the disease.
Khompela is angry because of the lack of positive change, and for that we can thank SARU.
However his rants scream “If you do not want to listen I am going to take away what matters most to you”.
It is a bit childish. It is playground bully tactics and again will solve nothing.
It will not take away the underlying problems raised in this article.
Also, what are the financial implications for SARU by losing the Bok brand?
Building a new brand costs money, and takes time - can they afford it?
Sure take SARU to task for the inability to transform - but you will only spite yourself if you occupy your efforts to removing an emblem.
The argument has been made that the SA rugby team cannot be seen as transformed because it is not representative of the racial compilation of South Africa. (When half of the Boks that ran out for Jake White in 2004 or 2005 I think were in fact black, Khompela all of a sudden said, no, African/ethnical black).
This notion in itself is a racist one as it discriminates against people who are included into the constitutional definition of black, but are excluded by that extra little tail namely racial composition. This would mean that Coloured and Indians are actually behind Whites in the line. As are Chinese for that matter.
Secondly, this implies that only a certain amount of White, Black, Coloured, Indian and other people are South African, as only certain percentages are allowed to represent South Africa. Think about it. Every time you say that you are sending out a sport team that is not representative of the country, you are saying that, although they play in South African colours, they really cannot be South African because of this demographic profile.
Now, all of a sudden, the Bok emblem is what is wrong with South Africa as well. Certainly did not seem like the majority of people minded the emblem last year. In fact, I have never seen a demonstration against the emblem. Can it really be such a big deal for the majority of South Africans?
Your argument that if the Bok emblem is taken away, more black people will support rugby is unfounded. There is no basis for it, whereas the amount of Black people in the streets supporting a bus full of victorious Springboks is kind of a big indication that the majority of people don’t mind. Might I add, a further indication is parliament full of green and gold jerseys, with the Bok emblazoned on the chest.
Khompela’s tirade has nothing to do with transformation, reconciliation or the development of rugby in the townships. It has everything to do with showing “these arrogant whites” a point. Everything his committee has done and everything he said before yesterday is clear indication that he has a deep rooted hate for white people and will do anything and say anything to stick it to them.
JOHN - I do not propose the argument you say I do. What I do advocate is a CONSULTATIVE and PARTICIPATIVE positive engagement and in particular ACTION. If we do what we have done in the past, the net result is chit chat and referral from one meeting to the next and suddenly you are the hamster on the wheel.
We are staring at the slow motion implosion of rugby and that calls for creative intervention to stop it.
One of the issues is to stop this BLACK vs. WHITE acrimony and debate. There is no place for this kind of racial profiling.
Collective thinking and collective implementation is required to resolve this.
Let me put it another way. Place PERFORMANCE on speed, strength, stamina and skills as the selection criteria for the National South African team.
Don’t talk to me about colours of people. Talk to me about those who want to be the best rugby players for their country.
John, I fully agree. The author hates SARU because of the Spears, and Khompela hates rugby because he sees it as white and successfull.Striving for underachievement has become the norm, because if all teams are hopeless, no-one can blame the other.
MORNE - As I said, if there was a consultative process of proactive engagement at all levels, to discover where the national rugby team of South Africa will be in the future, this would not be about what Mandela, Mbeki, Komphela, Lee, Hoskins, Marinos, Prinsloo, Basson, Muller, Ferreira, Roberts, Bhorat, Watson, de Villiers, Erasmus, Ludeke, Muir, Drotske, Eloff, Jooste, MacIntosh and others opinion is, it should be for the country to decide in a controlled process.
Komphela is being prescriptive and not consultative. It is up to SA Rugby to demonstrate what their players, fans and the country wants.
BURGER - You do have preconceived notions. I do not hate SARU. I love SA Rugby, otherwise why else would I care so much.
You can’t just say “because of the Spears”. What does that mean? If it means it is OK to renege on an agreement, then it is precisely this mindset that is the scourge of rugby and drives it to the brink of destruction.
Khompela does not hate rugby. You have to ask “Why is he so angry at SARU?” and I suppose also ask yourself, why your statement drips with sarcasm?
“What Komphela was screaming out was not hate speech, but that he and people like him have been hurt, humiliated and insulted by non action”
Why does he then not insist on the ‘Union Buildings’ and Parliament Buildings being struck down, both as per the Springbok emblem, were built/concieved back in the early 1900’s long before apartheid but used by apartheid’s masters? Do these ‘apartheid’ buildings not also hurt, humiliate and insult him?
Why is it racist to like a symbol that has been around since 1905 and recognised worldwide? By all means argue to have it changed for noble purposes like nation building but do not use words like “no negotiation” and “arrogance of white people” - that is not negotiating but the bullying of an arrogant person.
BRENT - I am not beating the drum of racism as it is inflammatory and highly volatile. For sure there are deep divisions but I have suggested engagement and a measured approach to discover and defuse these explosive issues.
Just an hour ago the following statement came out: “The ANC would like to state categorically that it would not like to see any replacement or change of the Springbok emblem until sufficient debate and consultation of all stakeholders, including rugby supporters, has taken place,” said African National Congress spokeswoman Jessie Duarte.
Now I can relate to this, instead of a knee jerk reaction to this brouhaha.
Let more people play rugby and build on this culture as an example to the nation.
If that is not the argument you propose, then your blog article is as clear as milk.
“We are staring at the slow motion implosion of rugby and that calls for creative intervention to stop it.” What does this mean? Tell you the truth, the kind of intervention Khompela suggests will hasten it in my opinion. Honestly cannot gauge your opinion on Khompela’s intervention (taking away the Bok), as it seems that your article and your post contradict each other.
“What I do advocate is a CONSULTATIVE and PARTICIPATIVE positive engagement and in particular ACTION.” How do you propose SARFU do this with a committee whose leader uses words like “non-negotiable” as a matter of course? What good is that going to do? It is clear that Khompela do not want to speak to these “arrogant whites”. He just wants them to do his bidding. He even likened us to Nazi’s. Is he going to negotiate with “Nazi’s”.
“Place PERFORMANCE on speed, strength, stamina and skills as the selection criteria for the National South African team. Don’t talk to me about colours of people. Talk to me about those who want to be the best rugby players for their country.” Isn’t this the agenda that SARFU is desperately trying to pursue? Isn’t this in direct opposition to what Khompela and his committee is pursuing, calling for demographic representativity along racial lines?
Why is it then that it sounds, from your article, you defend the viewpoints of Khompela and the committee?
“It is up to SA Rugby to demonstrate what their players, fans and the country wants” Are you saying that Khompela and his committee is asking for the emblem to be removed because they don’t know how SARFU and the fans feel about it?
The changing of the emblem has been on the ANC agenda since 1992. Every year since then there has been some form of attack on the emblem. Every year, since then, SARFU explained that it is a world wide brand, the fans won’t like it, the players don’t want it. Every year the fans write letters to newspapers in their droves saying where they can stick their team if they take away the emblem. You are an insider, or maybe know some insiders. How much money did SARFU make last year with the sale of Springbok apparel? My guess is a fair amount. How much clearer does it need to be made for Khompela to understand that the emblem is important to the majority of the nation? How much consultative processes of proactive engagement is it going to take for him to realize this?
No man. This is racially loaded. It has nothing to do with ignorance of what the players, the fans or the country wants. Simply put. Khompela couldn’t give a fig what the country, players or fans want. How many consultative, proactive processes of engagement did Khompela call for during his reign (pun intended) as head of his committee? From what I have read, every time he did, it was to parade SARFU on the red carpet, like a King granting an unruly subject an audience. A showing of power. Just like this is.
Like “we Nazi’s” like to say: “Sy onderrok hang lelik uit.”
“The ANC would like to state categorically that it would not like to see any replacement or change of the Springbok emblem until sufficient debate and consultation of all stakeholders, including rugby supporters, has taken place,”
It seems that there is a poor understanding of the history of the anti-Apartheid struggle when it comes to the “Springbok” brand. It is the one brand in which there may well be pride across national groups. Mr Butana Komphela has asked for any evidence that exists in history for such an assertion. Evidence does exist. Perhaps if those arguing for retention of the Springbok emblem used more sophisticated arguments that took cognisance of progressive history, their point may be better made.
After black and white South African troops returned from fighting the Nazis and Fascists in Europe they came back to a South Africa that saw the rise to power of the neo-Fascist Apartheid order. Thousands of ex-servicemen lead by the War Veterans Action Committee which included a number of communists, established the “Springbok Legion” with ace war-pilot, of ‘Battle of Britain’ spitfire fame, Adolf ‘Sailor’ Malan as its leader. The Springbok Legion in the words of ‘Sailor’ Malan was established to oppose the police state, abuse of state power, censorship, racism, the removal of the Coloured vote and other oppressive manifestations of the creeping fascism of the National Party regime. The Springbok Legion mobilised a Torch Commando of progressive ex-servicemen and their rallies had as many as 75 000 people in attendance.
In a speech at a rally outside City Hall in Johannesburg, the war hero “Sailor” Malan made reference to the ideals for which the Second World War was fought: “The strength of this gathering is evidence that the men and women who fought in the war for freedom still cherish what they fought for. We are determined not to be denied the fruits of that victory.”
At the height of its existence, the Springbok Legion attracted over 250 000 members, who proudly stood up against racism and fascism under the Springbok emblem. ANC veterans such as Joe Slovo, Jack Hodgson, Wolfie Kodesh, Fred Carneson and others were leading members of the Springbok Legion. I’m amazed that nobody raises this fact in defence of the Springbok legacy as a uniting symbol, even although there is the disgusting parallel history of all-white sport using the same emblem. Denial or downplaying of the latter will take SARU nowhere. Silence about the history of the Springbok Legion’s role in the struggle will also take us all nowhere. If we aim to unite the people of South Africa as one nation, we also have to look at the ‘ties that bind us’ of which we can be proud. This should also inform our discourse and debates. It would be more powerful to highlight to whites that they too have progressive role-models in the past which they should try to emulate. Adolf ‘Sailor’ Malan, an anti-fascist Afrikaner airman from Wellington in the Cape, who was one of the most highly decorated World War 2 heroes, is a fine role-model for Afrikaner youth trying to find their place in the new South Africa. He proudly served under the Springbok emblem. He is also a man that African and Coloured youth can warm to in terms of what he stood for and the action that he took. It is a pity that most people no nothing of this man and the Springbok Legion. I learnt about this directly from Joe Slovo and Wolfie Kodesh who post 1994 was an avid Springbok supporter and thought that Nelson Mandela was very wise in wearing the Springbok jersey to forge unity.
It is very important that we nurture the memory of those in the white community who stood up against Apartheid and ensure that progressive Afrikaners like ‘Sailor’ Malan and Bram Fischer become role-models for the younger generation of whites. Instead of taking decisions of a punitive nature, such as removing the Springbok emblem, the emblem can be used as a tool to educate people by highlighting the other facets of its history. If we are trying to build one united nation we cannot lose such opportunities to highlight the ties that bind us in our history. It would be foolish, destructive, and selective about what we see in history, if we do otherwise. There are many examples to show that the Protea was also used by the Apartheid regime, but it would be equally absurd to reject using this magnificent national flower because of that abuse. The world knows the Springbok brand – perhaps it is time that today’s South Africa and the world also knows about the other stories behind the Springbok emblem. Lets not waste an important opportunity for nation-building.
JOHN - And sweet as honey. No contradictions. For heavens sake man, listen to both sides, hear what they have to say and get on with the running of the sport of rugby properly.
The moment one stands still, you become paralysed with the rabble taking potshots and we go round in circles.
The facts are that SA Rugby are the custodians of the registered rugby trademarks in multiple categories from publishing to apparel and other applications.
These rights are “sold” or “leased” out to sponsors and SA Rugby are obligated to protect the rights as well as to enhance their residual value.
These trademarks cannot be vaporised overnight.
However, there are issues that remain unresolved and the “Scrapping of the Springbok” is used as a cattle prod to evoke a reaction. Which it has and will continue to do so.
So I have said time and again that SA Rugby needs to show some swift footwork and be proactive and put distance between themselves and their detractors.
Patric Tariq Mellet for president, every now and then a giant stands up and is heard. Your article in terms of reasonable debate and clear decent ideals lifts the spirit and drowns out the petty ‘noise’ of the rest of us blogging on Thought Leader
Okay. I think I get it. You are saying that if we remove the issues that worry the Khompela’s of the world, they will stop threatening with the removal of the emblem? Pardon my confusion, but from your post it seems you were defending Khompela’s request and I merely pointed out that doing so will serve no purpose. Not even the removal of the issues which irks them so much.
But, pray tell, give us a broad overview of these unresolved issues?
Hi Tony, I hope you are keeping well.
I have read you post and I cannot agree more that there is a desperate need for a “modernisation” of rugby administration. You have said it all. However, in reading between the lines, like in so many of your other posts (for which I have rebuked you before) I seem to detect a bitterness that seems to resonate from your personal vendetta against SA rugby, resulting from your personal involvement in the “Spears” saga.
Maybe it is time to come “out”, and explain the full saga to your fellow bloggers, give us an un-biased, un-emotional account of what really happened and what your involvement was. Then perhaps we can understand your inevitable, passionate condemnation of SA rugby. I sincerely believe that you have the acumen, the qualifications, the knowledge and expertise to be a distinguished administrator of the game, but alas I question your motives and allegiances. In many of your posts I detect some serious political undertones, and to be quite honest, I sometimes think that the likes of Komphela are spurred on, directly or idirectly, by a Tony Mckeever camp. I hope I am wrong.
In closing, should the “Springbok” stay or should it go? Yes or No?
@Patric
What an outstanding post! Please share some more with us. This is what “Thought/Sports Leader is all about. Thank you.
MICHAEL J - You want the short version and the future landscape or the unexpurgated long version warts and all.
Just to correct you above. I have no vendetta and you more than most individuals would recognise the wholesale violation of a community.
So let me say the short version is:
1. The Spears had/have an agreement with SA Rugby who reneged on the agreement on Super 14 participation.
2. This was a unanimous Presidents Council resolution on the 8th June 2005
3. A second SA Rugby Super 14 Franchise participation agreement exists dated the 28 November 2005 that includes the Spears as the 6th franchise and binds all 6 franchises notwithstanding their signature of this.
4. This was tested in the Cape High Court and the Spears had an\ High Court Order made in their favour. You need to appreciate that the South Eastern Cape represents 200,000 of SA Rugby’s 500,000 registered rugby players and they were and still are excluded from Super Rugby.
5. What followed was obscene spending of R27.1m to keep the Spears out of the Super 14.
6. Two months ago I called the President of SA Rugby in Australia to say let’s meet, I have a solution to remedying the Spears issue, racism, transformation and the expansion of the Super 14 with a unique Southern Hemisphere Super Rugby tournament - AT NO COST TO SA RUGBY.
7. Without breeching confidentialities I have acceptance of this competition format from broadcasters and have the sponsorship lined up. R50m pa for 3 years for the Southern Hemisphere tournament that includes some 20 rugby unions with 7 teams plus R25m pa for 3 years for a domestic TriGame Series that covers the cost of the extra South African franchise, so there is no financial burden on SA Rugby AT ALL.
8. There is a SANZAR meeting on the 15th October in Sydney and a Confederation of Rugby meeting in Dakar on the 23rd attended by the IRB and at these meetings, there should be discussion on establishing tournaments for the future.
9. SA Rugby have now been delivered a remedy and solution with undertakings from sponsors that this is acceptable.
10. The onus is now on SA Rugby to sieze the initiative and make good many wrongs in 2 weeks.
I am totally apolitical and just want the rugby players in the Eastern Cape to be given the chance and opportunity to play.
As far as the Springbok is concerned, I am a brand fundi and recognise the residual equity and value of a Billion Rand Brand that is 100 years old. In my view it has to stay and my answer is: YES
The issue Michael is that the brand of the Springbok must be put to the people of South Africa and shared with the 500,000 rugby playing fanatics.
So the Springbok divides South Africa… Lets change it. Absolutely brilliant idea!
Then the Protea can divide us! Great.
Butana Komphela must just be honest about his motives and admit that the real reason for him wanting to change the emblem of the national rugby team is the hurt whites on a emotional level, there is no way that such an action can lead to racial harmony.
The press release should read something like this -”In order to hurt white South Africans on an emotional level we are replacing the Springbok with the Protea. They deserve this because of their arrogant attitudes.”
I’m not saying that there is no reason for wanting to inflict some pain on white emotions in the country. Just be honest about it.
As for the Spears - Is that project still ongoing? If it is good luck with it!
GS van Zyl - The problem has been that the Springbok was and exclusive property beyond the pale of the majority of the population.
It is still exclusive and valuable which is why sponsors contribute the funding they do, only now it is and can be within reach of talented rugby players.
The task at hand is to put the Springbok within reach of the majority. It has an aura and a cache of excellence, but it does also carry negative attributes which need to be discharged and replaced with positive attributes.
That means it must be deconstructed so the negative attributes are shed and replaced with positive attributes which resonate with the people of South Africa.
So this myth of the Springbok as being a symbol of evil, needs to be exploded and repositioned as a symbol of unity.
“So this myth of the Springbok as being a symbol of evil, needs to be exploded and repositioned as a symbol of unity.”
This has been done twice already. 1995 and now in 2007. It is common cause that the whole country united behind the emblem in 1995. It was aptly illustrated by Mr Mandela and Bischop Tutu when they donned the jersey in front of world audiences.
But, everytime, through hard work and success the Bok emblem is being dragged out of that pit of quicksand called “apartheid legacy”, it is being kicked back in by guys like Khompela.
“The task at hand is to put the Springbok within reach of the majority” What do you mean by this. If you mean cheaper test tickets, I am all for it. Can’t see what you propose here. Elaborate please.
“It has an aura and a cache of excellence, but it does also carry negative attributes which need to be discharged and replaced with positive attributes.” It might carry negatice attributes, true, but it seems it does so only for those in parlaimant.
I honestly cannot see any other motive in these comments than to call out “these arrogant whites”.
Hey Tony,
I am well aware of wholesale violations from BOTH sides of the divide, in most spheres of life, that is probably the one reason why I am looking for more reconciliatory solutions to our challenges in life, whether rugby or politics. You of all people, being a “Bishops” boy, should know that. Im not too sure which generation though.
I question which generation, because your use of the word “DECONSTRUCT” reminded me of my days in the military. That was of course the modus operandi in the “DARK DAYS”, deconstruct and ……It is 230am, thanks for your response, I am now mooooeeeggg!!!!!!! Will chat in the morning. Looking forward to the rugger tomorrow.
JOHN - Allow me to explain how to reposition the Springbok. I am over simplifying here, but it works like this, by inspecting its “DNA”.
Firstly, the Springbok has both positive and negative attributes for example:
POSITIVE:
1. Heritage of over 100 years
2. Excellence
3. Courage
4. Performance
5. South African
6. Unity
NEGATIVE:
1. Apartheid era connotation
2. “Afrikaans”
3. Divisive
4. Racist
5. Elitist
6. White
Secondly, the objective in repositioning the Springbok for the future, SA Rugby must determine where it wants to be in 2011, 2015 and 2019 and that would be the Winning World Cup Champions.
Thirdly, one then takes the Positive and Negative attributes associated with the Springbok above and then decide on what additional Positive attributes we want to see added to the Springbok to replace the Negatives.
I would suggest:
1. Consultative
2. Non Racial
3. Uniquely South African
4. Unifying
5. Courageous
6. Integrity
So one subtracts those NEGATIVE associations and attributes with the POSITIVES above and you have a completely different “animal” in the Springbok that changes perceptions and resonates with ALL the people of South Africa. I could do this in 3 months before the British & Irish Lions came out.
Offering 5,000 Comlimentary Test tickets to every one of the Springbok Tests, for Springbok supporters in a Lottery, would be a route to go. This would endear SA Rugby to its fan base around the world, but it is an investment in the country and the brand. Sponsors could buy up blocks of this so 5 blocks of 1,000 tickets could be offered Courtesy this Fuel Company, this Beer company, this Fast Food Company, this Bank and this TV station.
Michael J - DECONSTRUCT might be a scary SANDF word, I have been there in Kimberley, Oudtshoorn, Upington and other places, but I use this the term to rather DISSECT the Springbok and then do a Dr.90210 on the Springbok to make it appealing to all, in a reconciliatory manner.
You slip in a comment attributed to the late Craven as factual
“My view is that Danie Craven’s statement years ago that “no blackman will ever play for the Springboks”, is at the root of this furore and the longer this statement remains unanswered, with no apology, the greater the divide in the game and the country will be about the Springbok.”
Will you please provide the details of - when, where and to whom - the late Craven is suppose to have ’said’ this.
And then
during the 70’s my late Dad as rugby coach had several interactions with Doc Craven
- one repeated comment afterwards was
“Doc will EEN rugby Unie vir almal in SA hê - ek wonder of dit in my leeftyd sal gebeur?”
It was then and now is therefore clear to me that as far back as the 70’s Doc Craven intention was to unify SA Rugby.
Further more - I am sure all of us had at one stage made comments or statements that we later DECONSTRUCTED with ‘opposite’ behaviour.
Should we thereafter ‘for ever’ be held to our once in the past comment / statement ???
I think not.
As the saying goes:
“Your actions speak so loudly I can not hear what you are saying.”
Surely Doc’s statement - if in fact - factually correct - should therefore be laid to rest - stop flogging the ‘dead horse’ so to speak !!!
BRAND - Thanks for your comments. Perhaps I have been less than obvious above.
What I am saying is that Doc Craven moved from a “verkramp” position to a “verlig” position and in spite of ridicule from the verkramptes became an agent of change in 1988 in establishing dialogue and engaging the other side as it were, in contrast to the Krokodil’s position, which is no dialogue.
So Brand my point is that similarly, you do not see this “Doc Craven Outreach” from SA Rugby in an endeavour to bring harmony and unity to rugby, but more of a combative and defensive stance.
For example, there is no strategic, Financial, Marketing or Business 3 year plan for rugby in South Africa.
Go to www.sarugby.co.za and the latest plan and Vision dates back to 2003 and we are in 2008 with 2011 around the corner.
Craven was an enigma, loved by many who knew him, yet also hated for doing little to challenge segregation in South African rugby, a sport central to white South African identity, during the apartheid era.
He did, however, attempt to protect rugby from undue political interference as the secret Afrikaner-Broederbond organization tried to influence selection policy.
He was derided for allegedly having stated that there would be a black Springbok “over my dead body.”
A fact little known to outsiders was that Craven did provide occasional coaching expertise for a “Coloured” (mixed race) rugby team in the 1940s and ’50s. He led the SARB into unsuccessful negotiations for rugby unity in 1987 when South Africa was excluded from the inaugural IRB Rugby World Cup.
Hey Tony, what a great weekend of rugby only to be spoilt by reports of mind blowing statements made by Luke Watson. I am sure you can give us some insight on this very sad state of affairs, once the reports have been substantiated.
Getting back to the “Springbok” and “SARU” debate. I hear what you are saying about the administration of rugby in SA and the dire need for a management “transplant” or “overhaul” (much better expletives than DECONSTRUCT), I think most would agree. Help me understand a few things though.
- Why did SARU renege on the Spears deal?
- Why would we want a Spears team in Super Rugby when the Eastern Cape cant even compete at Curry Cup or Vodacom Cup level?
- Why is Eatern Cape rugby administationin in such dire straits and bankrupt?
- Shouldnt we be trying to improve the quality of Eastern Cape rugby before we put them through humiliating defeats at Super Rugby level?
- Why arent you more directly involved in Eastern Cape rugby, eg. President or similar capacity?
- Why arent you more directly involved with SARU in an official capacity, and not as an adversery?
- Why dont you become more reconciliatory and compromising towards SARU so that you can make a difference from the inside? (If you cant beat them, join them)
- Who is going to win the Curry Cup? No fence sitting or “Naas” speak.
Well all of a sudden it became a very real issue and concern for the traditional big 5 that one of them will lose their spot in the Super 14, and through that, lose a lot more than just a spot in a competition. They will lose massive amounts of sponsorship money, as well as players.
Unfair? Why? Why do certain teams get an automatic inclusion into something although one or two of them almost always end last? Is sport not supposed to be rewarding performance? With the current system (no relegation) mediocrity is rewarded.
So the big 5 stood together and forced the renege issue.
When they can’t compete in the CC?
I suppose it is a question which came first, chicken or egg?
What leads us to believe you have to have a big powerfull union first to build a franchise around? Why can’t powerful unions be built around a powerfull franchise?
In all honesty, what does the other small unions benefit from the S14? Other than being guinea pigs for the big ones?
Did the Valke become stronger as a union because of their Bulls affiliation?
Who really benefits from the S14? Big unions or small unions?
How can we keep talent in the SEC? Perhaps by giving them a franchise? Something to build?
I think we should ask why they can’t compete? Money, incompetence? Then correct it from there.
Why are they bankrupt?
I think you will be interested to know that almost all unions are on the brink with only one or two being comfortable.
Recently it was reported that WP and the Lions are in big trouble financially as-well.
Humiliation in S14?
You mean any worse than what happens to the Lions year after year?
Seriously though, how do you propose improving rugby in the SEC when other provinces keep on signing up their young stars?
Michael J - Here are the answers to the questions you pose:
1. Why did SARU renege on the Spears deal? Answer: Three reasons. A) It posed a financial threat to the existing 5 franchises in the event that they sat out a S14, as there was no provision made for a tournament or structure for the Super Franchise sitting out. B) There was opposition to the entrenchment of the Spears in the S14 for 2 years C) No commitment or support system from SA Rugby for the Spears in 2006.
2. Why would we want a Spears team in Super Rugby when the Eastern Cape cant even compete at Curry Cup or Vodacom Cup level? Two Answers: A) The Eastern Cape have over 200,000 of South Africa’s 500,000 rugby players in the area and you cannot exclude 45% of your rugby playing population from Super Rugby. B) The Super rugby tournament is the well from which the provinces derive their greatest source of revenue. The Eastern Cape has been left out of this for 12 years.
3. Why is Eastern Cape rugby administration in such dire straits and bankrupt? Answer: Twelve years of an economic drought from being excluded from Super Rugby has led to positions being filled by municipal workers and teachers.
4. Shouldnt we be trying to improve the quality of Eastern Cape rugby before we put them through humiliating defeats at Super Rugby level? Answer: Establish a Super Rugby Tournament below the Super 14 between 7 franchise teams from SANZAR (3), Argentina (2), Pacific Islands & African Leopards. Then play a Tri Game Relegation & Promotion series in May each year between the last placed side on the log and the challenger.
5. Why arent you more directly involved in Eastern Cape rugby, eg. President or similar capacity? Answer: I am involved with Eastern Cape rugby and will have a go at the Presidency at the next elections.
6. Why arent you more directly involved with SARU in an official capacity, and not as an adversary? Answer: I have offered SARU a formula to remedy these issues with broadcasting and funding solutions, to which they say, “speak to my lawyers”. Go figure.
7. Why dont you become more reconciliatory and compromising towards SARU so that you can make a difference from the inside? (If you cant beat them, join them) Answer: See 6 above. The other option is to buy 50% of EP & Border and run these like a commercial enterprise.
8. Who is going to win the Curry Cup? No fence sitting or “Naas” speak. Answer: The Sharks.
Hi Morne,
I am not in any way trying to be confrontational, I am merely trying to garner as much divergent analysis as possible to formulate my own opinion. Thanks for your input. I agree Sharks will take home the silverware.
Thanks Tony for responding as always. I agree revenue and finances seem to be the bone of contention regarding the Spears saga as well as poor performance of EP and Border. But how does this compare with the other smaller unions who are performing rather well in both Curry Cup and Vodacom Cup? The other issue that bothers me is the poor supporter turnouts at the matches of EP and Border. Surely with 45% of our rugby players being based in the Eastern Cape (as you claim), they should have a huge supporter base. Something just doesnt seem right at these two smaller unions. Hopefully you can make the difference as President to give these two unions the resources and respect that they deserve. I say two unions, perhaps the two unions can be merged? The presidency will surely give you a foot in the door that appears to be slammed in your face so regularly. I really wish you the best of luck with that one, we need a breath of fresh air in those stagnant passages of rugby officialdom. Just dont get infected with that foot in mouth disease that is rife in that ivory tower. As a fanatical SA rugby supporter, I find it so very frustrating that we have so many, very suitable, very qualified rugby “nuts”, like yourself and maybe even Morne or Brand, and many other rugby legends, past and present, that would be far more suitable to run our rugby, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! it makes me mad.
Anyway good luck Tony, and keep us posted.
There are two slang “labels” for a White Afrikaans male (Dutchman) and a White English male (Soutie) that are nowhere near as demeaning, or derogatory, as the racial epithet “Kaffir” that rips through this country.
It is not even comparable, so why does SA Rugby not launch investigations into the utterances of this racial epithet with the equivalent vigour and intensity they have shown in response to Watson’s comment on “Dutchman”?
They all divide the nation and suddenly South African rugby is exposed as this racially charged sport, with selective and unequal treatment of players and Unions.
Michael J - SA Rugby have the tape of Watson’s speech and nowhere does he ever say Dutchman! Andy Colquohoun PR for SA Rugby, declared this to SABC this afternoon. Oops.
A Neil de Beer 2 pager
“Before trying to affect change in society, one must first change yourself” – Nelson Mandela
A simple sentence that is simultaneously profound in its basic truth and strikingly relevant even today. These words echoed in my thoughts as I was leaving a recent sports indaba; a platform that saw healthy debate across a wide range of topics but, none more emotional and controversial than the recurring debate surrounding the Springbok emblem.
Often, it is so easy to say that one must debate matters of this nature with calm reason and respect by means of intellectual discourse, but in practice this is far removed from the truth. The major fallout as a result of the debate concerning rugby and the Springbok emblem, both in rugby circles and nationally, is evidentiary to the myriad of emotions surrounding this matter and lays waste to the above pleas.
A critical evaluation of the past week’s discussion points (rightfully) points to a wide range of often conflicting views as should rightfully be expected in a country with such diverse cultural and historical backgrounds. “History” points to the past, a very sensitive and rocky issue in the South African context and as a part of a young advancing and changing society, we as South Africans need to determine the “history” in order to finally move on.
A large section of the South African populous, often more senior in age, formed part of the struggle for dignity and equality and to them the reality of history is still immensely painful. Others still would beg to differ and point out that there are bigger and more important issues deserving of undivided attention than the changing of the Springbok emblem.
As a white, male “boer” South African, I would truly be lying if claiming to have struggled prior to 1994 and even more so when claiming to possibly understand what non-whites endured under oppressive policies. I lived as one of the privileged thus I have no true understanding and the fact that I was a liberal humanist at heart had no impact on the preference my skin colour granted me. Comments that I hate the Springbok emblem are grossly unfounded as I have cheered, supported and buzzed in anticipation for the next game no differently than thousands of other Springbok supporters. I formed part of the game and Springbok structures, both administratively and as logistics manager for the victorious 2005 Springbok u-21 team at the Rugby World Cup held in Argentina. The scenes of raw emotion from the first whistle to the last cannot be described to any person who wasn’t there to experience the sheer electricity that coursed through our bodies on that historic day. Funny enough, the emblem on my tracksuit was the very Springbok I now proposed to be removed.
My input at the sports indaba saw me at the receiving end of a major backlash often referred to as “the white anger”. Let me make it clear that I am in no way trying to generalise any grouping as doing so merely points to ignorance, something that I am in essence vehemently opposed to. Implying that all white South Africans are racist, narrow minded and conservative couldn’t be further from the truth and let it be known that this is not my statement. My point on “white anger” is that (unfortunately) there is a segment that has now labelled me as a “traitor”, a “sell-out” and a “kaffer boetie”. These statements came via sms’s sent to me anonymously, a sign of cowardice and in response I can only take it from whence it comes.
Do we truly understand, not merely speculate on the history of the Springbok emblem or do we believe it to merely be a logo? Do we believe as do the leaders of SA Rugby, that the Springbok is a multi million Rand brand or do we know that Paul Roos and his team chose the name on their 1906 tour to Britain in order to prevent the English press from giving the team another name? The fact is that this name, that was initially an impromptu choice, then became the Sport emblem of the National Party and was used by all sport codes in the country. My calm and reasonable opinion then leads me to see the emblem as a representation of a regime guilty of horrific and horrendous acts.
The oppressed majority, many of which still harbour a deep seated hurt, can surely then not be expected to calmly accept an emblem with this history whilst at the same time all other sport federations had to comply with the new national sport emblem, the King Protea, with Rugby being the only exception to the rule.
Nelson Mandela, the nation’s hero and truly a great man, made a decision to keep the Springbok emblem for the 1995 World Cup and did so for the sake of national unity. One compromise should be met with another and today, for the sake of unity, please take this away.
Thirteen years after the 1995 World Cup, one can rightfully argue that there is no reason for the removal of the Springbok 14 years after the creation of the rainbow nation. In retort, freedom and liberty has no time constraints and growth and renewal requires sacrifice. However difficult and heated the current debate, the time for finding a solution amicable to all South Africans is finally here. Let us not hide behind subtle innuendos and dualistic phrases but rather shoot from the hip and say it like it is.
I have made many mistakes in my life, some truly regrettable and horrendous, but I now live every day to right the many wrongs in our young democracy and have made it my objective to make a positive difference. What is significant is that somewhere along the way, the debate veered off and essentially lost the plot completely. The true issue surrounds the fact that the King Protea is the national sports emblem and rugby remains the sole sport code that has not abided by the guideline. Noticeably, all other sports be it athletics, swimming, netball, cricket etc have embraced the change and made compromises so it begs the question; why is SA Rugby the odd one out?
Effectively the Springbok was granted a stay of execution in 1995 for the sake of unity and blame should be shouldered by the liberation movement for not making a clean break when the time was right. The logo should have been treated in the same manner as all other pre democracy logos and the current debate would in most likelihood not be taking place.
The transition from the previous regime to a democratic government happened easily as there was no revenge for past injustices, no blood in the streets, no persecution but rather a spirit of compromise and unification aimed at steering the nation into a new direction. One must stand in awe at the realisation that a vast majority of people, sometimes so cruelly and unfairly treated, could turn around and forgive so easily for the sake of unity.
I sincerely wish that we can come to a stage where our full national anthem is sung and not only certain segments. I wish for a time where we can debate matters close to the heart without fear of victimisation. I wish for a time where we can all support a team uniquely South African in spirit and heart as we have all seen the great emotions this beautiful game instils in South Africans from all walks of life.
South Africa has come so far and we as South Africans have agreed to put so much behind us to achieve a better future for all. The Springbok emblem has so many good memories tied to it, but at the same time it is undeniably tainted by a great deal of negative and painful memories. The changing of this symbol, a clean break from the past be it positive or negative, is surely a small price to pay in order to take rugby to all levels of South African society; a small step on the path of achieving a great, unified game.
Neil De Beer
@Tony
As an Aussie whose ties to South Africa go back to the Boer War a few years ago - and whose main sport is Australia Rules Football - I thank you for some of the insight into the problems and schisms you are now going through.
One wonders if the face will miss the nose that has been excised and I now also will wait to see how much weight the old ‘boks will put on, and how high their voices will rise, now that they have effectively emasculated and neutered as eunuchs?
As for removing the proud and mighty Springbok emblem - I shake my head in total disbelief and now wonder what will become of a once powerful and hard to beat team.
It is on a par with Culling the Wallabies and inserting ….. what? A cuddly Koala Bear? And the fearsome All Blacks becoming plain old Kiwis?
Only two words can describe this decision - “BLOODY PATHETIC”
Tony,
I am not too worried about the “dutchman” remark. I was called, not a “soutie” (as you politely put it), but a “sout piel”, for many years, even though I am a thoroughbred South African with Afrikaans and English forefathers. But as someone once said “take it from whence it comes”. I am however infuriated by his remarks regarding “vomiting on the Springbok jersey”. He may well have just said he felt like “shitting on the national flag”. I am not going to comment any further on the “Watson”, until the dust has settled and the facts are in the open. It is far too an emotional issue at this stage, and I think a lot of people are going to respond in a way that will just deepen the divide in our great game.
Tony, I checked out the “Spears” website, nice site and I will certainly keep an eye on it. The whole “Spears” saga still intrigues me, but I think there is far too much testosterone around at the moment, what with the whole “Springbok” emblem and “Puke” Watson debacle, and I will continue picking your brain.
Keep well.
michael j - Neil de Beer was the Springbok Under 21 Team Manager and attended the Sports Indaba conference last week.
This piece by him will appear in tomorrows media so apologies for the preview.
JAY - Thanks for dropping in from Oz! A nice piece of research on symbols and their relevance and application, would put to rest arguments, otherwise it will be a free for all melee. Just like those Aussies standing at the pub drinking XXXX in Townsville.
I think there will be calm if this research and study is done on how to position the Springboks and South African National rugby team.
Hence the pic of the Wallaby jersey at the top.
Flag on the Heart - Symbol on the right breast - Manufacturer in the middle - and Sponsor across the whole chest.
Michael J - Let’s for a moment assume we freeze frame all comments and statements from various population groups that are risque.
Watsons statement would be mild compared to that espoused at a rugby gathering at Bloemfontein University. For example.
My take on all of this is that we are appalled at the divergence of emotions and bubbling racism that we thought was eradicated. There are real and serious issues here in amongst us and around us that is abhorrent.
The danger here is that us “Piele” and “Menheere” with “OMG size” will descend into a tit-for-tat brouhaha that will only become ever more inflammatory.
Now on the Spears topic that intrigues you so. A news flash.
Just this past Sunday night I called Regan Hoskins following his requests to me to please resolve the Southern Spears/SA Rugby issues.
Unbeknown to you, over the past 3 months I have developed a solution to SA Rugby’s problems, backed by television coverage and funding, so that SA Rugby need not pay a cent towards this, to specifically
1. Remedy the Spears situation with SA Rugby.
2. Neutralise racism and transformation issues
3. Get the government off SA Rugby’s case
4. Expand Super Rugby in the Southern Hemisphere
5. Include Argentina, the Pacific Islands and CAR in a new tournament structure
Regan to his credit, embraces this with enthusiasm and for good reason, prior to his departure for the SANZAR meeting tomorrow Wednesday. Then I receive yesterday afternoon a Gestapo type letter from SA Rugby’s attorneys, to only speak to them.
Now I ask you with tears in my eyes, is this the kind of sense and sensibility SA Rugby needs if it wants to heal deep divisions?
Tony
Thank you for a well written article. I agree with you entirely. SA Rugby has squandered to good will of South Africa twice now (1995 and 2007). If you want the game to grow you need to build markte share amongst the biggest consumer group. As SA develops so more and more Africans will enter the new middle classes. Surely you want them to be rugby fans. You cannot do that by undermining their attempts to break into teh game. Letting the SPears go was a big mistake for rugby. Here was a chance to have a black team with black supporters playing at top level. Too sad we kept the current teams. I mean the Lions were basically also rans. Surely we did not need two Gauteng based teams in Super 14
Tony, LUDICROUS, is the only printable word that comes to mind, but I get the feeling that these guys dont like you.:-)
I spent a few hours last night, much to my wifes disgust, surfing various websites reading remarks and comments of “experts” and the man in the street, regarding the “Springbok” and “Watson” issues. The amount of raw emotion and often highly inflammatoty remarks expressed was quite scary and disgusting to say the least. The only conclusion one can draw from this mess, is that polticians and some so called experts, have just deepened the divide in the sporting community of South Africa.
The “Sports Indaba” in Durban was initiated by the Sports Minister primarily to analyse the dismal performances of some of our sports codes (highlighted by Beijing and Bafana Bafana) and to then try and plot a course to improve performance in all aspects of our sporting codes. I am yet to see a report on these findings, the entire “Indaba” by all accounts, was turned on its head and became one big political circus. What a terrible shame.
The problems we face in sport, are not going to be resolved by political posturing, political rhetoric, political point scoring or inflammatory gestures. I am sorry to say it, but Tony, you are also guilty of this at times.
I think we all need to realise that the sport loving public of South Africa (all races, cultures and creeds), are deeply passionate about their game, and I sincerely believe that generally (even the administrators) they are all serious about transformation. Sport is also an outlet for most people to escape the rigours of everyday life (money, work, poltics, volence, etc.) and when people start tampering with this outlet they get pissed.
The only way for transformation and reconciliation to succeed is to remove the “fuel” that can easily be ignited by inflammatory rhetoric. The definition of “inflame” is “rouse to anger”, and we all know that when people are angry they become irrational. So we need to identify the “fuel” to avoid igniting it. So what is this “fuel”. It is a host of issues that could be pertinent to certain sports codes, or certain sectors of society, it could be race, it definetly is politics, it could even be egos, and certainly a combination of all, depending on who you are talking to. To try and avhieve your goals in a sporting environment, one needs to remove the combustibles and hide away the matches.
Winning and how to win is all that counts in the mind of a sports fanatic. So to transform this creature in whatever way you want them to, you need to deal within the framework of winning, you need to understand this “language”.
Sport in our country is tainted by the remnants of revolution and apartheid (combustibles), politicians and activists (ignitors), neither have a place in our sport. Both are political by nature and are driven by political agendas, with a vocabulary where the words reconciliation, compromise and real transformation do not exist.
It is truely time that our sporting public and our sports administrators take heed, so that we can claim our rightful place in the arena of world sport. We have the acumen and the skills, lets leave politics to the politicians, let them play that game the way they need to, lets play ours the way we need to.
MICHAEL J - Nice sermon on the Mount and Cautionary about COMBUSTABLES and INFLAMMABLES. You espouse noble ideals and diplomacy best suited for the United Nations, because in rugby in SA you just do not have any Queensbury rules. It is a slugfest of note.
So having removed the Fuel and rhetoric, allow me to share with you some correspondence that is singularly the solution for defusing this apocolyptic time bomb for rugby.
The after reading this please give me your comments:
Dear Mr. President,
Following a most productive meeting with Steven yesterday, I believe we have arrived at a Super Rugby tournament format that addresses multiple issues and challenges facing SA Rugby, SANZAR, the Southern Hemisphere and IRB in growing the game and especially delivering optimum competition format to make the Super 14 a potent competitive tournament.
It can also be tested at the Sports Conference later this week in Durban, the SANZAR meeting on the 15th in Sydney and the CAR conference in Dakar on the 23rd October at which the IRB will attend. These are all key constituencies for SA Rugby and can demonstrate SA Rugby delivering a highly effective solution to very fragile issues.
This proposal would complement the existing Super 14 tournament, even with the addition of the Top Six playoffs proposed and create a pathway for expansion. The proposed addition of a 5th Australian team from Melbourne, to make up a “Super 15”, or even a bidding process for the “15th” team is fraught with risks, as the teams are untested at this level of competition and will face the same howls of opposition, as the proposed “entrenchment” argument. The below proposal addresses the pathway of preparation before potential admission into the Super 14. Most importantly, it is based on competitive performance.
In descending order the challenges being faced are:
1. Delivering world class rugby tournaments for the broadcasters and sponsors
2. Maintaining the Super 14 as the best Southern Hemisphere tournament for the broadcasters and sponsors
3. Expanding Super Rugby in the Southern Hemisphere with a coherent and rational plan in support of the existing Super 14
4. Seeking a tournament format that maintains competitive levels for Super 14 and National Team tournaments
Given the constraints of the existing broadcast agreements, the proposal forwarded to you, Andy Marinos and Steven Roos, provides a logical pathway and formula, for Super Rugby expansion over the next 3 years, with no disruption or dilution to the existing Super 14 competition, whilst embracing the regional interests of the SANZAR members, Argentina, Pacific Islands and members of the Confederation of African Rugby.
The proposal works as follows:
SA Rugby could propose the way forward for the Super 14, still with 14 teams, as follows:
A. The Super 14 tournament remains in tact, with the addition of a Top Six Play off. This is played from February to May each year.
B. A Southern Hemisphere Super Rugby Tournament made up of 7 Teams, [SANZAR countries each with an extra franchise (3), Argentina (2), Pacific Islands (1) and CAR (1)], playing 3 Home and 3 Away, that creates the pathway of preparation for each of the SANZAR countries extra franchises to challenge admission to the Super 14, based on performance. This is played at the same time as the Super 14 from February to May each year.
C. Each of the SANZAR countries to have a Domestic Tri-Game Series at the end of the Super 14 in play offs to determine promotion and relegation.
Super Rugby Tournament Format:
1. South Africa to have six (five plus one [Eastern Cape]) franchises with the fifth-placed South African franchise in the Super 14, to play the sixth franchise in a relegation and promotion Tri-Game Series (Home, Away & Neutral territory) This is played in May each year when the Super 14 Semis and finals are played as the last placed side is well known and out of the tournament. This is the Domestic Tri Game Series of relegation and promotion.
2. New Zealand to have six (five plus one [Northland/Tasman]) franchises with the fifth- or last placed New Zealand franchise in the Super 14, to play the sixth franchise in a relegation and promotion Tri-Game Series (Home, Away & Neutral territory) This is played in May each year when the Super 14 Semis and finals are played as the last placed side is well known and out of the tournament.
3. Australia to have five (four plus one [Melbourne]) franchises with the fourth- or last placed Australian franchise in the Super 14, to play the fifth franchise in a relegation and promotion Tri-Game Series (Home, Away & Neutral Territory) This is played in May each year when the Super 14 Semis and finals are played, as the last placed side is well known and out of the tournament.
4. Argentina to have two franchises [Buenos Aires and Tucuman or Mendoza] to play in the Southern Hemisphere Super Rugby Round Robin.
5. Confederation of African Rugby to have a composite team, the African Leopards, to play in the Southern Hemisphere Super Rugby Round Robin
6. Fiji, Tonga and Samoa to have a composite team the Pacific Islands, to play in the Southern Hemisphere Super Rugby Round Robin
This formula expands rugby in the Southern Hemisphere and includes the Tier 2 & 3 nations, plus CAR and particularly establishes a tournament for the franchises not making the Super 14 cut and benefits broadcasters and sponsors with an additional rugby inventory. This has the net effect of creating a pathway into the Super 14, immediately slowing the migration of players to Europe by retaining each country’s player asset base and ensuring that the Super 14 rugby product, with the Top Six play-offs, is the optimum television viewing and commercial property in the world.
There is a remarkable opportunity for SA Rugby to be at the forefront of strategically positioning the game of rugby for the future, and the adoption of this proposal can remedy multiple issues in 20 rugby playing nations in the Southern Hemisphere.
I remain available to you and SA Rugby, to implement this.
Tony,
- Your proposal for “Super Rugby” is commendable and certainly has merit. The fact that SA Rugby responded with a “Gestapo” type letter, as I said before is “LUDICROUS” (absurd, laughable, ridiculous).
- You certainly have proved your tenacity in pursuing the “Spears” issue, so I suggest you employ the same tenacity in pushing through your “Super Rugby” proposal. It is evident though, that in your “Spears” endeavours, you have made a few enemies along the way. Perhaps if I had given you the “Sermon on the Mount” and the Cautionary on “inflammables” all those years ago, we might have seen the “Spears” in Super Rugby by now:-)
- My “United Nations” sermon was directed at all the hotheads out there that are hellbent on turning these issues into racial and political ping pong balls that are only deepening the divides in our sporting community.
- I still dont know what the Springbok emblem has to do with sports performance. The “Sports Indaba” held in Durban was initiated precisely to deal with sports performance after the diabolical showing at Beijing, and the performance crisis of Bafana Bafana ahead of the World Cup. Khompela & Co. hijacked this Indaba for political point scoring and nothing else. If anything the Springboks rugby performance in winning two World Cups in four outings should have been used as an example of excellence for sporting performances in other sports codes. Besides our rugby prowess on the world stage let me remind you that South African soccer was once ranked inside the top 20 of world soccer, we are now ranked a lowly 85th. Our Netball team won silver in the 1995 World Championships, we dont even rank in Africa anymore. What has happened to our swimmers, our track and field athletes, our hockey teams, our boxers. Our Beijing performance was the worst since 1936, producing only one medal. Instead of addressing performance issues, we resort to inflammatory rhetoric, blame the Sprinbok emblem and our political rugby pawn, Luke Watson, wants to vomit on his Sprinbok rugby jersey.
- Our sports administrators and polticians persist with their own political agendas, with no regard for the advancement of sport. They anger (inflame) the sporting fraternity with inflammatory rhetoric, and then expect transformation to just happen.
- The “apocolyptic time bomb” that you talk about is not going to be defused with posts entitled “PW Botha and SA Rugby”, it is not going to be defused by “Gestapo” style letters from Administrators, it is not going to be defused by the antics of the Watson family, Khompela & Co. or Afriforum. It will also not be defused by a new Super Rugby tournament.
- Reconciliation and compromise is the only way this apocolyptic time bomb called SA Sport is going to be defused. Have we learnt nothing from Madiba. Not one but many “olive branches” will need to be passed around from all sides.
michael j - How I wish we could break bread and sip some red and let loose on the cut and thrust of thugby in this country. Maybe next time I am in Jhb. Could also quaff a few curry milkshakes (beer).
I see that your intentions are truly wonderful, but alas, they will receive shortshrift in this ruck and maul.
I have extended the olive branch and worked Argentina, Australia and the Pacific Islands into the picture not to mention the Herculean effort to finesse the branch - so we sit and wait and allow me to keep you posted.
I have Maslow’s optimism that man is basically a good person!
Tony,
You would have to break bread and sip some red and quaff a few curry milkshakes with me (not at the same time though, unless you want a moer of a headache) next time you are in Cape Town. I would hate to have been in that political ruck and maul in post apartheid SA trying to cut out a new dispensation, but hey, guess which team won? Not the brute brawn of the antagonists, but the finesse of the reconciliators. They re wrote history, watch the next guy to change history, Obama.
Keep up the sterling effort with your Super Rugby endeavours. Just polish up some of those jagged edges that protrude from your mouth sometimes, I think they call them barbs, and I am sure we will all reap the rewards.
I am going to click to another channel now, no not the cooking channel, the Dale Carnegie channel, “How to win friends and influence people”.
Cheers mate!
Michael J - Cape Town it is then - the Bay Hotel - Traders - our sommellier is Caamil - say when.
Today is the SANZAR meeting in Sydney, so I hope these solutions and initiatives are tabled discussed and agreed in principle as time is fast running out.
Argentina said yesterday that they want in on this Super Rugby Tournament.
I understand that Hoskins and stand in Sports Minister Ngconde Balfour had a chat last night.
SASCOC will shoot across their letter today to SA Rugby.
Peter de Villiers Springbok selections are being influenced by the BB Brigade.
e-tv did a piece last night and has the SA Rugby legal counsel declaring what Luke Watsons sentence is before his hearing even. Odd.
Eastern Province Rugby AGM and Presidential elections are on the 29th November and nominations need to be in before the 8th November.
Tony, you’re on, who’s paying?
-Why is Balfour standing in and what did they chat about?
-What SASCOC letter?
-Who is the BB Brigade?
-I’m very pissed with Luke, but he deserves a fair hearing.
-Are you going for EP or Border?
-Spears website needs to be updated, what has happened with all the legal wranglings re 2008 Super 14?
-Depends on what under rods they are wearing.
michael j - 18H00 Today Traders - I will spring for the Waterford red.
1. Minister of Sport is out of the country
2. Follow up to last weeks Sports Indaba
3. Broeder Bond Brigade
4. EP
5. Polishing my molars
Tony. Affirmative, today, 18H00, Traders, Bay Hotel. I will keep an eye out for the guy with polished molars, with a bottle of Waterford red and two glasses in front of him.
Sorry this is not a remark but rather a question. Is the Disa flower (red) a registered trademark, intellectual property or emblem of any South African sports body or organization?
Amanda Christensen on November 5th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Amanda Christensen - one cannot register a generic icon from fauna (animals) or flora (flowers) as a trademark. These according to CITES are actually the IP of the sovereign country.
The disa unless used with a another unique graphic device can then be registered as a trademark, otherwise no.
Most interestingly, South Africa are no longer the biggest exporters of Proteas, but New Zealand are.
South Africa has 4 national symbols: Springbok; Protea; Galjoen and Yellowwood.
• First step is to choose the medications and for this you must search the prices as well as the quantities that you would like to purchase that are available on the website. Click on “add to cart” in order to select the medicine that is stated in your prescription. Once you are through with the list click on secure checkout and check whether each and every medicine you require is being added to the cart or not.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Tony led the change in corporate identity of South African Airways from the airline of the old South Africa to the flag carrier of the new South Africa.
Before that he was a competitive provincial sportsmen in swimming, diving, waterpolo, lifesaving and white water rafting.
Rugby was played at Bishops, NW Cape, Maties, van der Stel, UCT, Hamiltons and False Bay.
Tony singularly authored the blueprint for the establishment of Soccer City Stadium for the PSL which in 2010 hosted the opening and closing ceremonies of the FIFA World Cup and the Finals of the soccer showpiece.
He was past CEO of the Southern & Eastern Cape Super 14 Rugby franchise, the Southern Spears and now CEO of the Super 20 Rugby World Series.
Tony's links
Rugby Union Links Rugby-Union.info links to live rugby union websites from all over the world. You can browse free sites by country or search for club teams, country sides, player profiles and international match statistics, news, results, manufacturers, and retailers. Rugby web sites listed are monitored and updated daily.
RugbyWeek A terrific one stop rugby anthology site updated "on the whistle" which means that when the whistle blows you have the results from around the world in one site. It is one of the newer websites and focuses on all facets of rugby. Every major tournament and every major team has their own dedicated section filled with all of the latest news on that topic.
Users can visit the site once a week and be kept fully up to date with the latest news on the tournament of their choice and at the same time scan the latest news in other tournaments that they do not follow as closely.
SuperSport The best and most successful provider of premium pay-television sports coverage across the continent of Africa.
SuperSport contributes its success to the seven departments which make up the company as well as the nine members of the management board who co-ordinate the functions of the company and the individual departments.
The Southern Spears This is the Southern Spears website with a catalogue of news, releases and thumbnail sketches of the Southern Spears team and activities set up a month after their formation.
This site carries more of a behind the scenes view.
VIP Limo Services VIP Limo Services of Cape Town & Johannesburg has it's own fleet of luxury sedans.
All vehicles have climate control systems with satellite navigation so drivers can get clients to their destination efficiently even in ever-changing Cape Town & Johannesburg traffic. VIP Limo Services drivers are professionally trained and licensed. All have a good knowledge of Cape Town & Johannesburg and a pleasant personality.
By the time you read this, the Springboks would probably have landed in Johannesburg and would be holding a press conference at the OR Tambo Intercont...
As you read this, Bakkies Botha is probably back in Pretoria leaving behind him New Zealand and the next three games of the Rugby World Cup, which end...
Dan Carter was to have captained the All Blacks for the first time on Sunday. An honour bestowed on him as a Kiwi legend akin to that of teammate Rich...
So now that we know Richie McCaw plays the bagpipes, and has Scottish heritage, the Rugby World Cup organisers are being put under pressure from all q...
The Rugby World Cup commences tomorrow September 9 with the All Blacks vs Tonga match. The flood gates will open for all the 20 team games with 600 pl...
Loading ...
It is an interesting perspective and you cannot easily fault it.
I do however believe simply removing the Springbok emblem will only treat the symptom not the disease.
Khompela is angry because of the lack of positive change, and for that we can thank SARU.
However his rants scream “If you do not want to listen I am going to take away what matters most to you”.
It is a bit childish. It is playground bully tactics and again will solve nothing.
It will not take away the underlying problems raised in this article.
Also, what are the financial implications for SARU by losing the Bok brand?
Building a new brand costs money, and takes time - can they afford it?
Sure take SARU to task for the inability to transform - but you will only spite yourself if you occupy your efforts to removing an emblem.
(Report abuse)