[…]Sports Leader » Tony McKeever » 2009 Super 14 to be stopped in January? Maybe not…….positive developments are underway[…]…

(Report abuse)

[…]Sports Leader » Tony McKeever » 2009 Super 14 to be stopped in January? Maybe not…….positive developments are underway[…]…

(Report abuse)

[…]Sports Leader » Tony McKeever » 2009 Super 14 to be stopped in January? Maybe not…….positive developments are underway[…]…

(Report abuse)

[…]Sports Leader » Tony McKeever » 2009 Super 14 to be stopped in January? Maybe not…….positive developments are underway[…]…

(Report abuse)

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.

(Report abuse)

(Report abuse)

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:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/rugby-faces-a-global-warning-1036458.html

Rugby faces a global warning

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

(Report abuse)

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.

(Report abuse)

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 ?

(Report abuse)

(Report abuse)