On Wednesday SA Rugby’s President Oregan Hoskins received a written demand from one of South Africa’s leading labour attorneys, Jacques Jansen of Jansens Inc, advising SA Rugby that they have received a mandate from personnel and players formerly of the Southern Spears, to recover unpaid salaries, leave pay, notice pay and outstanding bonuses from SA Rugby, totalling R4-million and that prior to and subsequent to the termination of their employment, SA Rugby has not complied with the law regarding the basic conditions of employment.
The Southern Spears, made up of the three rugby unions of the Southern and Eastern Cape Rugby regions, were awarded the sixth South African Super 14 rugby franchise by SA Rugby on June 8 2005. This was contained in a collective SA Rugby Franchise Participation Agreement between SA Rugby and the five other South African franchises, the Bulls, Cheetahs, Sharks, Lions, Stormers, as well as the Southern Spears, which commenced on January 1 2006 and runs through to May 31 2010.
SA Rugby’s Presidents Council bound themselves in a unanimous resolution on June 8 2005 to financially support the Southern Spears for the year 2006 only. Thereafter, the Southern Spears were included in the Super 14 competition for the years 2007 and 2008. When SA Rugby reneged on the agreement in March 2006, the Southern Spears challenged this in the Cape High Court and Judge Dennis Davis ruled in favour of the Spears on August 4 2006 and declared the agreement legal and binding. All 27 Southern Spears players and personnel, including the current Springbok Coach Peter de Villiers, received salaries and pay slips from SA Rugby until March 2006; thereafter SA Rugby unilaterally terminated payment of salaries to the Spears players and personnel.
Jacques Jansen said, “An employer like SA Rugby who, we are instructed, has willfully ignored labour legislation with impunity, are acting unlawfully. The players and personnel concerned were without question SA Rugby employees who were paid by SA Rugby, received SA Rugby payslips, IRP5 certificates and consequently became the victims of these unlawful actions by SA Rugby. They and their families have suffered enormous distress and financial hardship as a result of SA Rugby’s violation of labour law. Employers simply must employ responsibly and comply with our labour laws, failing which they face dire consequences. In the event that SA Rugby fails to resolve this dispute, they face defending some 150 applications that will be brought against SA Rugby. We will not hesitate to assist and represent these employees in the Labour Court in order to bring them some solace after this ordeal”
Not only has SA Rugby violated its own constitution by failing to bind its members and unions to this unanimous Presidents Council resolution, which in itself is deplorable, SA Rugby has also breached its very own Super 14 franchise participation agreement from 2006-2010 and face the prospect of the 2009 Super 14 competition being stopped by urgent interdict in January 2009, unless of course this matter is resolved by the Presidents Council.
If they are unable to do that SA Rugby, in terms of the SANZAR broadcasters agreement, will face multiple damages and loss claims from their SANZAR partners, broadcasters and sponsors, that will run into hundreds of millions of rand and be fatal to the organisation as we know it today. It is sheer lunacy that SA Rugby has spent R27.1-million to keep the Spears out of the Super 14, which would have been far better allocated to building the game of rugby in South Africa and the southern hemisphere, rather than destroying it. Six weeks ago I submitted a solution to SA Rugby that remedies this Spears/ SA Rugby dispute within days and at no cost to SA Rugby, which is precisely what Regan Hoskins asked of me.
The SA Rugby Presidents Council meets in Cape Town on Monday December 01 for an extraordinary meeting.
Related Posts
None
This entry was posted
on Thursday, November 27th, 2008 at 9:15 am and is filed under 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.
23 Responses to “2009 Super 14 to be stopped in January? Maybe not…….positive developments are underway”
There was never any space for the spears in the first place. This just demonstrates another resounding failure by interfering politicers who don’t have the interests of the game or people at heart. 27.1 Million - phew that would pay for uite a few facilities / equipment / coaching clinics in previousy disadvantaged areas.
I am surprised though at finding out that “Snor” actually has super rugby experience even if his “team” never played a game. I reckon he can count himself lucky on that score though. Can you imagine ’saders or ‘tahs racking up over a hundred against a group of 2nd tier players and Snorkie still getting the hot seat?
I think not.
Firstly the 3 Eastern Cape regions of Border, EP and SWD are the ONLY regions without a franchise. All the other 11 SARU unions are affiliated to one of the 5 franchises. Why leave these 3 unions out of their own franchise. A franchise is the business that provides funding for the unions. Just ask the big 5 and why they have allowed the Spears to remain excluded from Super rugby, only they have done it to the detriment of SA Rugby and you and I and all rugby supporters in this country.
Secondly they, the 3 Eastern Cape unions, account for 200,000 of the 500,000 rugby players in South Africa.
Thirdly 80 elite players from these 3 regions are playing for other unions.
You are however right that it is indeed lunacy that SA Rugby has spent R27.1m to keep the Spears out of the Super 14 and that cost is mounting.
Today SA Rugby are meeting on the 4th floor racking up R200,000 in legal fees discussing how to continue keeping the Spears out.
The solution is simple. Create a separate, fully funded, Super rugby tournament under the Super 14, a feeder tournament as it were, comprising 7 teams from:
1. The Spears South Africa
2. Melbourne Australia
3. Hawkes Bay New Zealand
4. Buenos Aires Argentina
5. Tucuman Aregentina
6. Pacific Islands - composite Fiji, Tonga & Samoa team
7. African Leopards - composite African team
Then the last placed South African team in the Super 14, plays the Spears in a tri game series and then you can pass comment on the ability of a team you know very little about. A pure relegation and promotion route is the way to go as is proven universally in all sports leagues.
TM… I’m all for getting monies owed to the Spears… and then you guys sorting your own collective VC team first that can qualify and threaten in the CC…
However with Cheeky Watson wanting to feed from the trough… there is no hope for EC rugby…
Why have these fellow BEE spivs and big business not put one cent into EC rugby sponsorship?
Is the EC that far gone that they cannot get their own act together without handouts… which inevitable get ‘misplaced’…
JustAnotherBEEspiv on November 28th, 2008 at 5:57 am
JustAnotherBEEspiv - I agree with you on all your points: 1. Recover monies owed to the Spears 2. Big business has not put money in because this area comprising the 3 regions are the only ones who have been without a franchise for the past 8 years. Sponsors want franchise exposure not backyard pigpen games.
3. I think you will find that the EC owes way less than the Lions R30m debt and the Stormers R8m debt.
Good luck Tony … We in the Eastern Cape NO LONGER support South African Rugby, I’ll sooner shout for Argentina than for the Springboks after the way we’ve been handled here the EPRU is a grand old Union founded in 1888 (4 years before the NZRU).
The Economics and Socio Political backdrop must also be taken into account when you speak about the EASTERN CAPE. A thorough investigation into the HISTORY of Rugby Unions like NATAL, WP, TVL and NTVL will show the EPRU has been properly shafted from under 9 year old rugby, through high school rugby, at tertiary level rugby AND at Senior Provincial Rugby.
South Africa has a responsibility and until SARU step up, I’ll shout for ARGENTINA’S PUMA’s rather than the Zimboks.
Viva the EPRU, the home of African rugby, viva the EPRU, the future Eastern PUMA Rugby Union (let Argentina ANNEX the Eastern Cape) and we’ll leave SA Rugby, we’ll play AGAINST the Zimboks and show them what TRUE AFRICAN/ARGENTINIAN rugby is all about ! You know it, you know it !
thevoice: I love your passion and feisty-ness. Why should you not be able to shout for your own team and your own players?
So write to the Herald, Mail & Guardian, Argus, Business Day, Dispatch, the Star, Pretoria News and vent the fact that you want your own franchise in the Eastern Cape and for you to get the Spears to play Super rugby against the other Southern Hemisphere teams.
It can be done. The approvals and requests have been done, the broadcaster realises that if it is not done, SA Rugby could face an application for liquidation and their precious broadcast agreements get torn up and SA Rugby starts all over again.
And why do they just get gifted a place in the tourney? They should have to qualify at the very least against the current franchises.
Perhaps the reality of a few 60 point drubbings will illustrate that maybe they should focus on getting one or more of their teams in top flight Currie Cup rugby before playing in the Super 14 - where even our top flight teams struggle compete
gmk - nice one, what boodle? Read carefully here. I did not say entrench them in the S14 but have a feeder tournament under the S14 made up of 7 teams.
Then the last placed team in each of the 3 SANZAR S14 countries, plays the extra franchise in a relegation and promotion tri-game series in their country.
So for example the Lions have been the last placed South African team in the S14, for the last 3 years.
Whoever would be the last placed South African S14, come April 2009, would have to play a 3 game relegation and promotion series against the Spears.
Firstly, the Super 14 wont be delayed. I think you know this also.
On the Spears, just so the cards are on the table. As it’s obviously something you care deeply about (and perhaps judge okes on, even if subconsciously). I didn’t support them, but then I didn’t support the adding of any extra SA sides. I don’t really care who the fourth team is (after Bulls/Sharks/Stormers).
On your idea for promotion/relegation and Spears inclusion. A level under Super 14 as a feeder (’Not So Super 7?), wont ever happen.
Aus and NZ, are both looking at rationalising resources and concentrating what they have.
NZ are cutting back the amount of pro unions, Aus have long since canned, their still born one season wonder pro domestic comp.
The costs will simply be too prohibitive, for the reward they’ll get (if there is any). Minimal fan and viewer interest also.
I just don’t see the money to back this, or indeed the viewer interest.
It’s not like every comp has a promotion relegation system either. Currie Cup has (with only 14 teams and two tiers, which is too many pro players/teams and impacts on the ability to compete with Euro clubs for the most valuable resource, the players, but that’s a separate discussion), Magners league does not, Italian Super 10 does not I think(?), French Top14 does to ProD2 lower than that I’m not sure, HC runs on qualification from national leagues, ANZC have restructured a little not sure what will happen next season with some teams being amateur again etc.
I’ll make special mention of England. Because that’s where the concept of leagues/organised sport/leagues (with the arrival of the train and passion for soccer across the country)/and the sport of rugby, all started.
English GP has promotion/relegation, but their are moves to ring fence so it’s only between Nat 1 and GP. Promotion/relegation is creating a situation where lower league clubs over spend in a desperate bid for glory above their level, and hit the wall. Something very common in English soccer now. Luton Town have gone into receivership/administration three separate times, Leicester City and Swindon Town are other serial offenders. 42 separate clubs out of the 92 in the Football League, have gone into administration since ‘92 at some point. Promotion relegation, destroys teams that are poorly managed or just plain out minnows. It introduces harsh market forces. Around 20 clubs have been one season Premiership wonder teams, they get promoted one season, go down the next and ultimately into administration. Below the premiership, clubs do not make a profit and if they do, they’re not successful.
70% of the premiership runs at a pre-tax profit. Championship (the level below) has a 75% pre tax LOSS, the highest of any league. Clubs take huge financial risks, in a bid to outspend each other and gain promotion. This destroys many below the top tier. 17 of those 42 clubs that have gone into administration (often multiple times), play at the Championship level (which is a 24 team league).
Promotion/relegation, would be manifestly bad for a side like the Spears.
That’s without getting into the non sequitur faceless Baabaa sides, with no money backing them. That do little for development in those nations. I think the PI Baabaa team, is an appalling snub to Tonga/Samoa/Fiji rugby. Only capped players will be picked for that team regularly, they will only play overseas - there’s zero scope for development. The one uncapped player I’m uware of that was picked for them, Siti Sivivatu, got the exposer of a three match series against Wallabies/All Blacks/Springboks, playing in a non test team so was not tied to any PI nation. And then played for the All Blacks.
I’m loath to pick on individual quotes. But this:
“Thirdly 80 elite players from these 3 regions are playing for other unions.”
Indicates an outmoded mindset. I mean, do you count Schalk Burger in that list?
It’s of little relevance where a player is born. If a union is a genuine hotbed, most of the players from there (Super 14 side or not), wont be playing for that union. Look at WP.
The top few teams, are just vehicles that give the top couple of players the best team environment possible. It isn’t based on geography, neither is the fan base (you see Sharks and Bulls fans almost everywhere, especially). It’s just based around success.
If the Spears want support from average Joe public. The three constituent parts (I’m sure I read some place SWD were not interested in being involved anymore?), must simply perform better. SWD/Border/EP, populating the last few positions in the first division log, is unacceptable. They’ve been bettered by non-entities of likes of Griffons/Pumas/Leopards. Come on. It’s not like those sides benefit from a massive club system or schools structure like the Eastern Cape Unions do, nor do they have some huge Super 14 money pot to call on. Those positions they set up camp in, on the first division log of all places, is a huge indictment of Eastern Cape rugby admin. They have been outperformed by the Leopards AKA Pukke.
EP/Border, did in fact used to be franchised. With the Sharks (the Sharks even had multi-coloured stripes on the bottom segment of their jersey to signify this you may recall). The Sharks somewhat unusually, even played matches in PE/East London (two a season up to ‘99? it was something like that). But KZNRU, had to buy these matches back off these unions as they weren’t capable of hosting them to the required standards. It’s not like they’ve always just been ’shut out’.
Finally and in summary, if you want Spears to succeed (by this I mean more than just being ‘accepted’/win some pyrrhic victory in a court room), you need to:
Have reasonable quality feeder unions (Currie Cup level), or replace the three/two unions with one decent Currie Cup level new ‘Spears Union’. This is the key one for me and would indicate strongly the other criteria had been at least partially met.
They have to have access to Super 14. Either through a qualifying tournament in September (when players currently sometimes play CC) of all 6 Super sides (way to bloated imo, but anyway), competing for the 5 spots. Or just straight entry.
For any possibility of success, or even just maintaining a decent level of competitiveness, they’ll need a standard of management which has eluded them for decades.
FYI - My preferred ‘realistic’ option is:
For the Spears to replace Border/EP/SWD completely. 7 pro teams, in an 8 team Currie Cup (WP/Sharks/Bulls/Lions/Cheetahs/Spears/Griquas/+ one ‘other’ that qualifies through Vodacom Cup). No second tier Currie Cup.
North Freestate is merged with Freestate in my setup. Leaving 11 unions, 4 which will be amateur/semi-pro feeders. Players from the 3 unions not involved in the Currie Cup, are available to any team through a draft system.
The 5 Super 14 spots, are then determined on Currie Cup log finish. Players from the other 6 unions go into a draft.
No SA Super 14 team operates as a ‘true’ franchise anyway, with the exception of the Cheetahs perhaps.
Sharks are using a straight club model, not franchised with any other team and purely focused on success/results. That’s the way to go and the reason why the Sharks have become the force they are, from being a non-brand before the 90s.
‘… must simply perform better’ and higher ’standards of management’ side-step the chicken-and-egg cononundrum because, using YOUR analogy of the English Premier League, if the EPRU had Chelsea’s financial resources this would partially all be a moot point - money, money, money honey. I dream of a ‘Carlos Parerra-like coach (maybe GH when he leaves the AB’s), a couple stars, Danny Carter, Brian O’Driscoll, Phillipe Contemponi, Mils Muilema, George Gregan and such and such (not asking much) and the EPRU will be properly KICK-STARTED ! Get a proper management team in too (with local under-studies), hell hire whatisface Donald Trump !
At the same time pump cash into development of youth neglected by SARU in the Eastern Cape and revive OLD structures that have withered to non-existence.
This is a national imperative, and it’s going to HURT SARU financially… but the $7 or $8 Billion will unite SA RUGBY and undo neglect and intentional harm caused by them systematically over the years…
Once the EPRU is running like clock-work, beating the SHARKS, CHEETAHS, BULL BULLS and WP consistently … beating the Crusaders, Toulon, Bath etc, … then justice will have been done/SARU’s paid its debt/ filled its resonsibility to SOUTH AFRICA
Confused: Thanks for your thoughtful and provocative commentary and observations! Great stuff.
1. On stopping the Super 14: Do not be so sure about this. SA Rugby are hanging on by a financial thread, so much so, their solvency is in question, especially with these financial and legal liabilities that have to be settled and are desperate to receive their 31st January SANZAR payment. There are legal papers already drawn, ready to be launched on SA Rugby and it is in the hands of the Presidents Council to resolve this within the next 2 meetings. In legal jargon they will have created the urgency for an interdict. Stop this and SA Rugby hits the rocks.
2. On your comment on the S14 Feeder tournament not happening: There are existing broadcast contracts that are binding till 31 May 2010. There are no other options to expand the S14 without diluting it. In the same way there is speculation that the Spears would be creamed, it is a certainty that Melbourne (the area left out in favour of the Western Force in Perth) would be decimated in the S14. New Zealand has 3 options for extra franchises in Northland, Tasman and Hawkes Bay. All strong and all formidable and they want a 6th franchise. The feeder tournament that I have proposed is the only logical pathway to execute this and not violate any agreements with broadcasters and sponsors.
3. On there being no money to back this: There is R50m or $5m available on an annual basis for 3 years to underpin the admin and running costs (travel, hotel, transfers, officials) of this 7 team tournament that is played over 4 months, with each team playing 3 home and 3 away in 3 different geographic conferences. This is adequate funding as each of the 7 franchises will seek out their own additional sponsorship and I have not yet secured a Title Naming rights sponsor for this yet, but there are 2 candidates that would like to be invited to consider this position.
4. On relegation & promotion: To keep the S14 hot and competitive, for fans, spectators, sponsors and broadcasters, it is essential that each of South Africa, Australia & New Zealand have their surplus S14 franchises challenge the last placed side of their country in a Tri-Game Series for a position in the following years S14. This would be played in the last 4 weeks of the S14 in each of the SANZAR nations. In my view, this do or die contest over 3 games will attract enormous interest in each of the SANZAR countries. NOTE: Your comparison with England soccer and the GP has its own problems with too many teams in their respective leagues.
5. On the PI BaaBaas snub: The Pacific Islands could play as a composite team and their 3 home games could be played in each of Fiji, Tonga & Samoa. This will grow their game, but I suspect that elite players will be revealed and signed for Europe and SANZAR countries rugby tournaments, but they will just have to get over that.
6. On 80 Eastern Cape elite players playing for other regions: I have not suggested we go back to the birth place of individuals, (as you do with Schalk Burger), as this would be an almighty stretch of the imagination, merely school leavers and provincial players. 40 Eastern Province players alone are signed for other South African unions. Consider if you have Rory Kockott, Ryan Kankowski, Solly Tybilika, Brent Russell, Wylie Human, Joe van Niekerk, Heyneke Meyer, Jake White, Gert Smal, Allister Coetzee, Peter de Villiers all contributing towards the establishment and mentoring of the Spears team and you probably get the idea that the team is waiting for this kind of intellectual capital and talent.
7. On the quality of the franchise feeder unions: That self help system is underway and starts today in Border and Eastern Province and gain at the presidents Council on Monday and gain at the next Presidents Council in January and it turns on those meetings. It is not possible to collapse unions into a franchise. All sorts of legal obstacles prevent this from happening vis a vis SARU, Unions, collective agreements, contracts etc etc. It is impossible. The idea could have happened in 2006 when the Spears were set to play in the 2006 Currie Cup and SA Rugby nixed that and now they, SA Rugby, have quite literally insurmountable problems.
8. The final solution is money that will cure these ills, disputes, issues and legal and financial challenges that beset SA Rugby. I have procured R75m for that and broadcast coverage to go into 2 competitions. The Super 7 Rugby feeder tournament and the Tri-Game Series. Implement this and sit back and enjoy watching the spirited talented rugby coming out of these regions.
Everything that I have shared with you above, Hoskins knows about and further has received calls from the broadcaster to say, that they are up for it, “just get SA Rugby to agree”, to doing it.
The question is: “Why would they not agree to this?”
As a person that justs wants to watch top sport and support my country I have to say that this blog and all the SARU rubbish around the situation just highlights how immature and incompetent we are in South African adminsitration.
Of course Tony McKeever has views that make clear sense and so do the other idiots involved in sport in this country. Unfortunately, while each will argue that they are supporting the good of the majority (840% of the world’s rugby players reside in the Eastern Cape or 75 million previously disadvantaged players now reside in Joburg and want to watch S14 at Ellis Park); the fact is that there is no mood from either side to look for a sensible partnership.
My suspicion is that those currently in charge are having a great time at the trough of money, power and influence and don’t want to admit another group who also want a slurp of the gravy.
As a person who has come to believe nothing that I read from the SA media I have no clue any more as to whether Cheeky Watson is a good adminsitrator or not or whether his motives are transparent or nothing but another grab for power.
Likewize I don’t know whether Luke Watson said what was alleged or evn what he intended to communicate. So I ignore it all.
All I want to watch is good rugby and pass my own judgement. And even here I am suspicious of what happens because I have been watching Luke Watson for the last 4 years and if anyone thinks he is an international class rugby player then they have another agenda. He runs away from his support, is caught too often and gives away penalties or turn-overs and is nowhere near quick enough over the ground.
And in the style of Ruby that is South African (at the King Protea level)he is too small. Our style requires a Jolly Green Giant and that he aint.
And if anyone wants to bring up the argument about a ‘Fetcher’ then I am afraid it’s Baywatch Grobler by a mile.
IAN JAMES - I think most of us want to watch quality rugby and like you should demand it.
I am not sure which hemisphere or country you are in, but in the Super 14 and in South Africa, what is lacking at Super rugby level is a promotion relegation series that favours the best team.
It strikes at the heart of sport, “May the best man/team win”.
There is an abundance of phenomenal talent around South Africa, that you only get to see half of it. (I am loathe to quote figures or stats, lest you throw anopther gazillion in here somewhere)
That is unbalanced and I am afraid your symptoms can be attributed to that.
I am optimistic that there are moves a foot to sort that out in a couple of weeks.
thevoice - You misunderstand my ‘analogy’ (it was more of a mini case study specifically looking at promotion relegation systems in England soccer/rugby, but anyway). Chelsea are the exception not the rule and tbh I don’t even want to think of the financial state they’ll be in, when their sugar daddy goes. I’m looking at the rule, what promotion relegation creates, not the exception and the rule is clearly set out in the situation Championship clubs just below Premiership level, frequently find themselves in.
Just look at some of the problems faced by some Nat 1 English rugby teams - Cornish Pirates/Coventry/Nottingham. Don’t dismiss those teams as village affairs either. The RFU puts £1.65m into the league, rising to £2.3m next season and PRL (Premiership Rugby Limited) putting in an additional £1m next season. That’s £3.3m (US$5m) next season between 12 teams, before additional sponsorship. Or that same amount Tony says he can raise, but with less overheads and 5 more teams. It wont be enough, £300K is not enough to run a team, even with top ups from sponsors.
This leads into Tony’s ‘point 3′ sort of. US$5m between 7 sides, or US$700K, wont be enough.
A few years back (and the Rand has taken a hit since 05/06-ish, so you can halve the figures) the Sharks top player was on US$20K a month. The Sharks whole player budget for the 2005 season was US$4.5m (that covered absolutely everything to do with the players). The Bulls estimated squad salary for the coming 2006 Super 14 season, at the end of the 2005 was R7291667 (US$1m) excluding bonuses and incentives (which are a significant factor in players salaries, especially appearance money). You can see how US$700K, for absolutely everything the team does, may not in fact go that far. Even if you doubled the figure to account for extra sponsorship, you would be about equal to just the salary budget for the players alone (and imo, player resources are not where South African sides ever had problems, it’s the paper pushers/management)
What will travel costs be like (7 teams, in ‘3 different geographic conferences’?), it sounds like they’ll play all the teams but the teams in their conference more times? (or you get two teams just playing eachother all the time). In which case, travel will be a significant overhead. We’re talking three continents here, the biggest annual league in geographic terms ever held. No, US$1m to $1.5m per team whilst a massive amount will barely cover the costs. I’ve mentioned the Top14 budgets before (”Boom or Bust: Part III”), the most Toulose (US$30.22m), the least Mont de Marsant (US$6.48m) that’s what you’ll be in competition with to keep hold of player resources. I mean, you’re barely at the races with only 1 or 2 million in total, against those Euro sides. Although it’s better than what EP has at the moment and I wish you luck.
You need access to a top competition to command the best money. Promotion/relegation is a system that will provide an avenue for advancement of teams outside the current lot. But will keep them down, in much more subtle ways. False hope.
‘Point 2′ - The other way to expand after 2010 and indeed what will probably happen. Is a conference system, similar in some respects to the NFL. This is preferable to a traditional league, when adding additional teams over vast geographic distances.
Aus wants Japanese/HK sides in as much and maybe more than a Melbourne team. NZRU has made no mention of a new franchise, but it’s likely they will move the Highlanders franchise. Also been some mention of an East Coast USA side. A conference system is the only way of enabling the adding of those teams. Japan/HK, certainly give huge additional sponsorship, some AUS sides already receive Japanese sponsorship. A Bledisloe test was played in HK this year, USA next year. This is the direction they want to go in, they’ll do it with or with out SA.
SA should be looking very closely at adding a Dubai based side (biggest turnout for a 7s event ever there 30K this season), significant expat population, financial hub of the middle east pretty much, huge sponsorship opportunities. Like HK/Japan/USA, no national union that will dictate terms, they’ll role out the carpet. The other teams in a western conference would come from Argentina.
‘point 5′ PI teams should play as Tonga/Fiji/Samoa, or not at all. Maybe okay at provincial level to have a combined side but not at national. Playing as a combined team, robs them of potential IRB ranking points (Fiji made the quarters of the RWC, lost to the Boks, which actually means they finished 5th, unable to gain ranking points this November, were grouped in the 9th to 12th section for RWC draw) and doesn’t enable them to cap new players tying them to their national team. Can’t see how a combined PI side based anywhere but in New Zealand, would be workable financially. It certainly aint going to work off the Tonga/Samoan/Fijian economies and the extra travel costs associated with that.
‘point 6′ I’m fully aware of the strength of the club and school system in the region. I even alluded to it in my first post. As well as the history of SARU/SARB/federation/association sides in the area. I was just trying to understand the criteria on which the figure was based, not because I didn’t believe the figure. More just trying to get some insight into your thought processes regarding who you’ll be able to sign and on what grounds. It’s why I mentioned Schalk. Big Joe and Jake White are pretty much Vaalies aren’t they? Big Joe went to school there, started at the Lions moved to WP, went back to Lions and moved overseas. Jake White started at the Lions (development officer and video analyst), then moved to KZN where he was assistant coach/video analyst, then Cape Town and the Bok job.
I mean Jake is a Johannesburger … or is there something you are not telling us? He has been living in Cape Town awhile now, even goes to the same church as a certain group of people…
The list? Well, it’s pretty much par for a Super 14 side. A decent one anyway. Cheetahs did the opposite and went only with unknown local talent, even with comparable levels of ‘possible Cheetahs’ in other teams and overseas, cheaper. Hey half their side gets poached each year, they don’t have the financial clout, but they do have a few Currie Cups to show for it.
Less interested in remaining points. But will just comment so I don’t miss any:
‘point 1′ I just don’t believe the Super 14 will be postponed. I’m not familiar with the situation SARU is in (I know also Stones has rebuked you in the past). I know nothing of any of this. All I know, is that it’s much bigger than SARU. What you’re saying is insurmountably huge to understand, multiple downstream impacts Lions tours/end of season tours etc. If SARU get that desperate, they’ll open I’m a line of credit, or ask for the payment to be brought forward, or go their partners for a short term few month long lone.
‘point 4′ There’ll be less interest in a 2nd division comp outside of the knockout matches. That’s just standard across all leagues that use this format. The top league commands the viewers and money, below that it’s loss making entities for the most part. Jeez, it’s well documented how New Zealand and Aus fans (SA numbers unknown) are turning off from the main event, as is. NZ and Aus will be your main opponents to this. Even then an extended knockout series (how would last three weeks work, three weeks before the end is round 14?), will probably be decided by the second match in most cases.
‘point 7′ I was just commenting in the second post what my perfect outcome would be (as I had offered a huge post with no answers of my own). It’s lamentable what happened in 2006, but too late now, unions have been merged before. Long term, if the Super 14 is to expand and there must be compelling financial incentive for that, then conferences NFL style get my vote, purely because of the immense distances we are talking about.
‘point 8′, you’ve explained the 7 team feeder comp (although bit vague on these conferences/3 matches home and away), what the hell is the Tri-Game series? Is it actually the same thing but the promotion/relegation element? EDIT: Oh reading point 4 again I see it is. My head is spinning.
Final bit, I suspect Hoskins didn’t agree because a) it has more to do with ARU and NZRU than SARU. SARU has a strong hand with SuperSport effectively contributing 45% of the NewsCorp money, but SARU don’t want to rock the boat and jeopardise this. Especially with ARU/NZRu looking at alternatives (Bled tests, AUS voting for Japan in last RWC bid). It’s why the SARU proposal, was a minor reworking of ARU (in particular) and NZRU conference proposals, with added safety net/guarantees.
b) Rather more obviously, Hoskins didn’t listen because he isn’t a huge fan of Tony McKeevar plc and already has a big sack of cash, thanks to the SANZAR cash cow.
Thanks again, I enjoy the blog. Don’t often get the chance to chat with a ‘rugby personality’ type oke, you normally just read about.
My first read thoughts are - SANZAR must end and SA should move to the 8 Nations with the 6 N’s in the North. The NZRU has a market leading brand which it along with the ARU is globalising and intensively marketing according to a plan which see’s SARU on the fringes and is marginalising (for SA) in nature. See AB’s in HK, AB’s at Yankee Stadium, see AB’s with proper Grand Slam, AB’s at Croke Park. (or Aussies in HK, Aussies at Wembley, Aussies in New York etc)
2. IRB regional development funding global equity. $800 Million was ploughed into OCEANIC rugby development by the IRB in 2008. What amounts went to South America, to Africa, to North America or Eastern European/Middle East/Asian rugby development ? OCEANIC ‘islands’ feed AB and Wallaby rugby and I’m worried the IRB is funding their engine and not ours. How about some IRB cash for the Eastern Cape or for Namibia, Botswana, Zim, Zaire, Kenya, Mozambique, Swaziland, Lesotho, Angola ? Long term sustainability is in the balance and the long term future of rugby in Africa is in AFRICAN rugby development. One day, a SADC tournament will be as vibrant as football in South America. It’s going to take work to make it like that.
3. SADC and South America. I understand SA had a hand in the founding of Puma rugby. Today South African relationships with South America are growing stronger and stronger and many, many SAFFERS are able to speak Portuguese and Spanish (thanks to local regional links like Angola/Moz) The futures of African and South American rugby union are linked. HOW and WHAT that will entail I don’t know… but certainly a lot of work still lies ahead. I DREAM of Argentina (at least) in the 8 Nations with SA ie (EN/Scot/Ire/Wales/Italy/Fr/SA/ARG) and then an Afro-American Cup to feature SADC and emerging Brazilian, Chilean, Urugianian etc teams)
4. NZRU and ARU - as stated in point 1. These unions development naturally go hand in hand. There’s NO place for SARU. Merely focusing on short term contracts and cash deals and income/revenue streams resulting from SANZAR is silly. SANZAR, the Tri Nations and Super 14 MUST end - the future of rugby depends on it (think Northern Hemisphere strengthening with SA and Arg influence, think development of rugby in AFRICA and South America, think NZRU responsibilities in their backyard, think ARU responsibilities in their backyard)
Rugby Union and Soccer - fight fire with fire and SARU needs to step up… when ARGENTINA played FRANCE in the 2007 RWC, the kick-off of regular soccer had to be rescheduled… it can be done ! SARU needs to understand that soccer is a threat, I don’t think they fully understand that ?
confused - an enormous post and surely provocative. It is easy to get lost in the minutae and emotion, but your debate on geographic areas and conferences, has to be tempered with the existing contracts and agreements in place combined with the various rhetoric spouted by New Zealand, Australia and South Africa.
Then there are the secret and not so secret agendas of the IRB to contend with, to keep some areas weak with a “drip feed system” of cash and inducements and protecting the Celtic nations, who are fast buckling to the invasion of the Southern Hemisphere barbarians.
Just ask Japan and the USA. They are both livid at being treated as some country cousin on the periphery, yet all (IRB, followed by New Zealand and Australia) want to raid their corporates for sponsorships. You could understand their fury and it is a fuse that is burning increasingly faster.
It is a fascinating and complex political merry go round of amateur vs. professional, Gaul vs. Briton, north vs. south, Celt vs. colonial outpost, mixed with financial raids on the Southern Hemispheres player base.
All have this myopic obsession and fail to see how to remedy this in the future, yet they are plagued by crippling domestic issues because there is no coherent tournament fixture in place that can cascade the cash down to the player. In short the system needs an overhaul and all we hear is blah blah blah.
Permit me to fill in a perspective on the territories vis a vis the Super 14 as that is cast in stone till May 2010 and is up for renewal to be renegotiated June 2009 and is probably the tournament that needs the most revitalisation. This offers a start at the revitalisation and building process.
So SANZAR are joined at the hip and with a joint bank account until then, yet each territory has an urgent need for expansion and their respective constituents are screaming for an extra franchise.
Amidst all of this, each of the 3 SANZAR unions are haemoragging players faster than you can say “Dan Carter, Matt Giteau and Bryan Habana, in the same sentence as Euro”.
Australia are desperate for a 5th franchise, to incorporate Melbourne and New Zealand want a 6th, with Northland, Tasman or Hawkes Bay all wanting to be the 6th franchise. In this mix you have the Spears/Eastern Cape that have hammered SA Rugby over the past 3 years, because they were offered a franchise, given a franchise and then had it unilaterally sabotaged and denied and still it plagues SA Rugby.
On that point, SA Rugby have been afforded an opportunity to remedy this or face an interdict to stop SA Rugby and the other 5 franchises from participating in the 2009 Super 14. That moment has been prepared for and is coming unless SA Rugby fixes it pronto. The alternative is quite simply an implosion of SA Rugby on the scale of Lehman Brothers on Wall Street a few weeks ago. Shut the doors and bring in a new team to run SA Rugby.
SA Rugby has no contingency plan and are all out of cash, with VAT issues looming, so any damages and claims for losses will require them to shut down.
Unless……………….they implement a contingency plan that defuses this cash crisis and pumps in money to alleviate their problems. They are all out of time and money.
This represents enormous turmoil within SANZAR and they have been unable to “crack the code” as it were, in establishing sequential tournaments and a coherent fixture list domestically, internationally and with the Test fixtures.
Higgledy Piggledy comes to mind, so rather than point fingers and drop the blame on someone or SANZAR, the urgent requirement is to fix it and move towards a coherent fixture list that will increase supporters fans, sponsors, television broadcasters and generate revenues.
This has to be done recognising the broadcast and sponsor contracts in place and establish dynamic tournaments that will grow the game.
I see you would rather amputate Tonga, Fiji and Samoa from competitions, rather than engage them. Your alternative then is also to relocate them, namely the Pacific Islanders, to New Zealand. This forced relocation plan, as previously implemented in the old SA does not work. In my view these Pacific Islanders and Argentina have to be kept in the loop to grow Southern Hemisphere rugby, while at the same time knocking the Northern Hemisphere upstarts off their perch, which is being done with regularity by the top 3 nations.
If Argentina, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa, with Namibia can climb the tables and replace, Wales, Ireland, Italy and Scotland and they can, then that will cause heart failure at Huguenot House.
The way out of all of this is with the introduction of a new well capitalised tournament in the Southern Hemisphere, to play concurrently to the Super 14 as a Super 7.
Then the SANZAR nations each have their lowest placed team in the S14 play a Tri-Game series against their extra franchise in a relegation and promotion series. It keeps the tournaments hot and nurtures growth of theplayers and slows the exodus of players to the Northern Hemisphere.
Possibly the next tournament to be entertained is a global franchise tournament on an annual basis, with the Top Ten franchises, drawn from the Guiness Premiership, Top 14, Super 14, with the addition of two wild card sides to come from the Americas and Asia/Russia, but that will strike fear into Huguenot House again, as they feel it will devalue and undermine their cash cow, which happens every 4 years.
The landscape of rugby is about to change in 2009.
thevoice - Your $800 million IRB is a dream figure that the IRB would love to have. It does not exist. What does exist is GBP50m.
Perhaps this article off the Independent yesterday is quite revealing to the points you raise. I could direct you to the web link which is here as well:
With professional rugby battling the planet’s biggest sports for media exposure and commercial gain, is the sports governing body doing all it can to win the hearts and minds of the world outside its traditional market? We catch up with the man whose damning report says not
By Danny Coyle
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
The IRB labelled it deeply flawed. The conspiracy theorists suggested it was the work of Premier Rugby.
Sections of the Scottish media said it was the brainchild of the French and English clubs, designed to increase their power base.
Others claimed it was cooked up by the same group that had so strenuously backed Japan’s failed bid for the 2011 World Cup.
It is fair to say that the Putting Rugby First report has set tongues wagging since its publication in July.
Its authors say its raison d’être is nothing to do with any of the above.
It claims the IRB structure is undemocratic, says World Cup hosting decisions have been short-sighted, insists the IRB has missed the golden chance to get rugby back into the Olympics and that the sport’s global appeal seldom reaches beyond the boundaries of the traditional rugby-playing nations.
What has not been revealed, until now, is the complete background to the document that has fuelled fresh debate over the future of the game.
The origins of the report can be traced back to 2005, and that infamous vote on the hosts of the 2011 tournament.
The smart money (as it turned out, not so smart) was on the seven-week circus going to Japan.
Given the successful FIFA World Cup in Japan and Korea in 2002, the Japanese had proved they were able to host a major sporting event and, for rugby union to expand its profile into a new market, they fitted the bill immaculately.
The votes were cast, fingers were crossed and, to the dismay of much of the rugby public and the Japanese bid team - supported at the time by the likes of Martin Johnson and Jason Leonard - New Zealand were declared the winners.
Quentin Smith, chairman of Sale Sharks and co-author of Putting Rugby First, picks up the story: “Like a number of people I was very surprised. It looked like a regressive step,” says Smith. “I love New Zealand, I went out with a New Zealander for 10 years. If it were closer I’d live there.
“But it just seemed wrong that it should go to a foundation country when we’re in a very aggressive market for sport and we need to find new markets.
“I looked into it and started to find out all sorts of things about how the vote was managed and that 40 minutes before the votes were cast it was decided they would do the vote in secret, so nobody quite knew who was voting for what.
“I started to interrogate this, writing letters and e-mails and getting lots of attention through it.
“I was getting a long way, then the Japanese said to me, ‘listen, you’re being too closely associated with us, even though we’re not paying you or instructing you - we’ve been talking to you - but back off, this could jeopardise our chances of 2015.’ So I backed off and let it go.”
Two years later, Smith recounted this tale to a group of wealthy acquaintances in a Paris restaurant on the eve of the World Cup semi-finals. They were outraged and requested that Smith pick up the paper trail again.
“I started doing some proper investigation into how the IRB is run. I came up with lots of information and we decided we would then look at publishing it,” he says.
Smith recruited the services of some colleagues at law firm Addleshaw Goddard and teamed up with fellow co-author William Field from management consultancy Spectrum Value Partners.
“We needed a little bit of a financial lift for the actual publication of the report which came from the people who had asked me to look into it but there wasn’t anyone who gave us financial support who had a vested interest,” he insists.
The report was published and circulated in July 2008 to over 1,000 rugby administrators.
But it was not until an open letter was sent by the authors to the IRB in September, requesting for a response to the six goals (see table, right) they set for rugby to become a truly global game, that the Dublin-based organisation entered the debate.
The IRB argued the report was “deeply flawed” and said it “clearly ignores the substantial development work done by the IRB and Member Unions over the past 10 years.”
They pointed to the $US50 million invested in growing the game world-wide, the newly created tournaments in Oceania, the Americas, Asia and Europe and the growth of the World Cup since its inception, and replied to each of the six goals in turn, noting that the joint award of both the 2015 and
2019 World Cups next July increased the chances of a non-traditional country hosting one of those events.
The fly in the ointment there could be the fact that the tournament in New Zealand - where Putting Rugby First argues the market is saturated - is set to make a £10.7m loss for the IRB. As a result, a bid from a foundation union such as England that could guarantee a huge profit could be favoured in 2015.
“How appalling is it for a host nation to be scheduling a loss at this stage?” says Smith. “It’s a wonderful place, it’s got no flaws, but it’s a small economy.
“Adidas tell us they can’t sell another All Blacks shirt in New Zealand. Everyone who wants one has got one.”
IRB Chairman Bernard Lapasset refused to publish the full-length reply to Putting Rugby First’s initial letter.
“It was frustrating that we were stalled on that basis,” he says. “Everything we’ve done has been open and honest and we’ve got nothing to hide, so when we finally get a reply from the chairman of the IRB I thought, in the spirit of openness and fairness, it would be sensible to publish that reply, but he said no.
“I’ve replied to him explaining why I thought it would be fair and I’ve not had a response.
“We have talked in the report about transparency, about open governance, about actually running rugby as you would a major corporation. On the one hand the IRB say ‘we’ve got a website and you read what you want through the site’. On the other hand, doors get slammed in your face. It’s run like a club - that’s part of the global frustration if you’re not in the club - it’s equivalent to the Bullingdon drinking club.”
The argument that the IRB’s structure is undemocratic is difficult to pour cold water on. The eight foundation countries have two votes each on the IRB council. The Tier 2 nations have one each, and there are just six more spread out over the remaining 103 member unions.
The fact that the bulk of players and money flowing into the sport comes from those top eight countries is also a valid counter-point that the IRB rightly makes. But it’s the representatives of the foundation members on that council that Smith also has a problem with.
“The council members are supposedly the key decision makers, although they don’t meet that often,” he says. “They’re the people who are supposedly the determined characters, they’ve got a massive responsibility to make change.
“But I believe, from experience of meeting some of these council members, that very often they don’t go with a mandate. They go as someone who captained their national team in 1948, supposedly someone who has an encyclopaedic knowledge of rugby in their jurisdiction and therefore they know what to do.
“They make assumptions. They don’t go with clear instructions or with clear authority. You’re just relying on their experience, their outlook and their personal views, embodied in someone who is one of the great icons of the game. It’s just not good enough. It’s not the way you run a business.”
The fact that those behind the report - described in the document as “a diverse collection of professional rugby administrators, sponsors, supporters, and former players, from both small and large rugby nations,” remained anonymous drew criticism from its detractors. Would the public approval of one of its high profile backers not have helped the cause?
“The reason for not going into who helped us was because there is nothing personal in this,” argues Smith.
“It would be a distraction and either the report stands or falls on its merits or it’s not worth reading.”
While many of Putting Rugby First’s arguments are valid and well-founded, the IRB were disappointed that they weren’t contacted directly before the paper was published. Whether they will engage in further debate in public remains to be seen.
“If I was the IRB I’d have invited me over to Dublin, put a big, meaty paw round my shoulder, closed the door and said ‘right, what the fuck are you up to? You’re not going to go away so what can we do to work with you?’” says Smith.
That phone call is unlikely to be made any time soon, but the IRB is being far from inactive. Returning the game to the Olympic family is one of their five strategic goals, with presentations being made recently to the International Olympic Committee.
If the IOC welcomes rugby back, it would be a seminal moment for the game. One that would earn the IRB huge respect.
WHAT IS PUTTING RUGBY FIRST?
1. Published in July 2008, an independent report on the health of rugby union
2. Backed by an anonymous group described as ‘a diverse collection of professional rugby administrators, sponsors, supporters and former players, from both small and large rugby nations’
3. Says rugby is failing to maximise its opportunities to grow internationally
4. Labels the IRB unrepresentative and undemocratic
5. Set six goals designed ‘to help rugby move towards a more genuinely global future’
THE IRB’S RESPONSE TO PUTTING RUGBY FIRST’S SIX GOALS
1. Making the IRB structure more democratic
The IRB said: Those that provide the bulk of players and money into the game should have the bulk of the representation.
2. Good corporate governance IRB:
The IRB applies corporate governance and management best practice. It has a good working relationship with all stakeholders in the game, including IRPA, and regular meetings with key stakeholders around the world are now commonplace.
3. Five-year plan:
IRB: Pointed towards its strategy document available to read on www.irb.com.
4. Specific plans with measurable objectives
IRB: “Each year the IRB creates an annual operational plan that refers back to the Strategic Plan, all areas have KPIs and KMDs. Same applies to annual Union Trust grants and our more targeted strategic Investments.
5. RWC 2015 in a prioritised territory
IRB: Council decided to tender both RWC 2015 and 2019 at the same time. One of the reasons for that was to increase the likelihood that a RWC will go to a non-traditional territory.
6. Rugby in the Olympics
IRB: The IRB has been working very hard for re-inclusion in the Olympics. The inaccurate report doesn’t help rugby’s campaign as it paints an inaccurate picture of rugby. Go to YouTube and type in Rugby is Reaching Out to see the quality of our Olympic materials.
THE IRB’S FIVE STRATEGIC GOALS
1. Strong and effective leadership by the IRB
2. Maximise the profile, profitability and value of Rugby World Cup
3. Increase the number and competitiveness of unions at Tier One
4. The increased participation in rugby worldwide
5. Rugby rejoining the Olympic Games
THE STATE OF THE GAME - BY NUMBERS
97 per cent of the 33 million viewers of the 2007 RWC final came from the foundation unions.
TWO votes each given by the IRB Council to the eight Foundation Unions. ONE each to four ‘Tier 2′ countries.
103 remaining IRB members share SIX votes through continental representative bodies.
75 per cent majority required for key decisions, it takes just four Foundation Unions to ‘veto’ proposals that might have been agreed by the other 111 members.
£10.7m loss expected to be incurred by the 2011 RWC.
This story was sourced from International Rugby News
I always wonder at how amateurish our professional rugby leagues are organised. I guess its all contained in the Put Rugby First report. It is good to read that things are set to change in 2009. I liked some of the proposals above and find the various pros & cons is quite interesting. Basically, a two-tiered professional rugby league ala soccer, or more draft type system such as professional sport in the US, with maybe conferences to reduce costs to individual teams. What is also important is not to flood the market with too much games that dilute the value of each game (lessons from the NFL that deliberately limites the amount of teams and games to increase value of each game - simple economics (monopoly rights)). At the same time, a promotion type system support greater competition and interest in the lower league games/teams. Also, not too many teams that in effect create dominant teams and minnows in the same league because of the limited size of the professional pool of players and monies available (lessons learnt from Currie Cup in SA in the past, SA Soccer, etc).
Here is just my proposal (based on soccer leagues): As custodians of rugby in SA, SA Rugby should organise the professional leagues in SA with say 8 places in the top league (call it the Curry Cup) and 8 in the 1st division (call it the Vodacom Cup). In other words, there are 16 franchises for “sale” in professional rugby in SA. The existing unions could have stakes in these, but ideall not - if the team is not profitable, the owner of the licence can sell it to someone else / it could be sold at receivership. The top team in the 1st division automatically gets promoted to the premier division and vice versa for the bottom team in the premier division. The runners up in the 1st division and 2nd from bottom in the premier division could contest for a place in the top league. Alternatively, these 4 teams could contest it in a playoff format.
Each franchise is thus run as a professional business, maybe not even affiliated to a amateur rugby association. Contract conditions could stipulate the distribution of these franchises so that Soweto, Nelspruit &/ Mthatha could each have a franchise (or not). TV rights to the top league will be substantially higher than for the lower league (e.g. Supersport buying either both rights, or ETV/SABC could buy rights for the 2nd league at a significantly lower price)
Similarly, franchise rugby in the southern hemisphere could have a top league (similar to UEFA championship) comprising say of 8 teams, and a 1st division league (similar to UEFA Cup) also comprising of 8 teams. One can always structure the contracts of participating in these various leagues so that it also support international rugby (releasing players for international duty, compensation for clubs&players, scheduling leagues to cater for international games etc.), unlike international football.
SA Rugby should not have stakes in the professional franchises, only through the fees they attach to franchise licenses and income from TV & advertising rights to the league. Through this income, SA Rugby should support the amateur game (who actually feeds and trains the players for the professional game), but be more a “regulator” of the professional game. Provincial rugby unions should focus on promoting the amateur game in their areas.
Such a make up should encourage a properly run franchise in the EAstern Cape (even if it is in Mthatha or East London) to compete in professional rugby in SA and potentially participate in Super Rugby if it is able to attract enough money and players, keep costs down, etc.
But I also like the alternative of a draft system for teams to play in “higher” leagues (e.g. Vodacom Cup teams in Currie Cup, Currie Cup Teams in Super 14) etc as mentioned by Confused has its advantages. The leagues must be run professionally (quality product and profitable), as well as the teams. Given the many legal constraints to change things now for 2009, should we not start developing a blueprint for at least professional rugby in SA post 2010, rationalising the professional game in SA. And ideally based on some blueprint for the international game as well.
We should accept that the existing powers that be (in SA and internationally) may not want things to change with them losing their powers and influence: so a strong case could be made to formally seperating provincial rugby from professional rugby.
What is the chance to establish another professional rugby league in SA (based on the blueprint) if SA Rugby dont want to change/adapt? Could this league not develop a more professional international schedule? How would SA Rugby and the IRB react to a competitive league? (Similarly to what the ICC did with the Indian IPL and ICL situation? Does SA Rugby have a legal monopoly on the game in SA?
In terms of Aus & NZ looking north for new markets, we should remember that they have rival professional rugby (like) produts i.e. Aussie Rules and Rugby League.
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 ...
There was never any space for the spears in the first place. This just demonstrates another resounding failure by interfering politicers who don’t have the interests of the game or people at heart. 27.1 Million - phew that would pay for uite a few facilities / equipment / coaching clinics in previousy disadvantaged areas.
I am surprised though at finding out that “Snor” actually has super rugby experience even if his “team” never played a game. I reckon he can count himself lucky on that score though. Can you imagine ’saders or ‘tahs racking up over a hundred against a group of 2nd tier players and Snorkie still getting the hot seat?
I think not.
(Report abuse)