There has been a little bit of a dust-up and finger pointing between SA Rugby and the Lions over the question of some unsold tickets and why?
The number of unsold British & Irish Lions Tour tickets after 9 matches is a staggering 170 000.
Take the average round value cost for provincial and mid-week games — R125 a ticket for 166 536 non-Test tickets — and you get a loss of R20 817 000, and for the one Test in Durban, R1 140 per ticket multiplied by 4 187 tickets is R4 773 180 in unsold tickets.
All in, that is a total of about R25 590 180, a not insignificant sum for SA Rugby and the Lions to be worried about as you can be rest assured there were expectations of the “House Full” signs going up at every game the Lions played around the country.
For a breakdown take a look at the turnout across the country:
Okay, some damage control and spin doctoring was under way at SA Rugby this past week. The acting managing director of SA Rugby said: “If we knew the general economic environment against which the tour was to be played we would have re-examined some of the ticket prices.”
Firstly, the economic meltdown started last year and seasoned economists these past 2 months have said the recession is over and we are in an upturn and secondly there should have been a concerted effort by SA Rugby to allow South Africans to attend one of these games — R50 per ticket would have delivered R8.5 million. Instead SA Rugby got empty seats.
I remember Tests and games were made all the more exciting in the past when the media used to profile the rugby nutters who camped for up to 4 days outside the stadium ticket office with sleeping bags, tents, hot coffee, buns and boerewors rolls just to get tickets. This is what fuels the players and makes rugby a healthy game for the fans and spectators.
Instead, the parent body has made some fatal errors. The high price of the Lions tickets has not only deprived them of R25 million in revenue, which they had counted on, but they have alienated the rugby fans around the country and more so denied South Africa of a Rugby World Cup in 2015 or 2019 by revealing to the IRB that SA Rugby are unable to plan a commercially successful tour.
Which is why the chairperson of the IRB, Bernard Lapasset, said: “The Rugby World Cup’s commercial success would give the IRB a platform to invest up to 150 million pounds (200 million dollars) in 2009-2012 across all 116 Member Unions in the form of annual Union grants and the strategic investment programme that is designed to increase the competitiveness of the game. As the revenue generated from RWC is vital to the IRB’s ongoing development plans, the RWCL Board considered in its review process the preference for RWC to be held in one of the major Rugby markets on a regular basis.”
He explained that a tournament in England would be commercially strong and deliver “a great RWC showcase”.
This statement comes hot off the back of the British & Irish Lions Tour to South Africa in which 170 000 tickets were unsold and this was not entirely a great commercial showcase and you do not have to be an Einstein to deduce that the IRB were given all the leverage and ammunition they needed to build a case for England in 2015 and Japan in 2019 and announce this on July 28 in 3 weeks’ time.
Expect more high drama to unfold and a putsch in rugby. This will all centre on a little-known team otherwise known as the Southern Spears.
Related Posts
None
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, July 1st, 2009 at 4:48 pm 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.
32 Responses to “170 000 unsold Lions tickets!”
Yet more proof that those charged with running rugby in South Africa have very little regard for the fans and even less financial acumen. Consider also the money that could have been earned from merchandise sales and food stands at the games.
VINNIE - The point is that there were 170,000 unsold seats - or what part of this did you not understand?
A proportion of say 10% seats in every stadium should/must be made available to those unable to pay exorbitant ticket prices.
Stadium sponsors and advertisers want full stands. Allow me to jog your memory from this dim fella, the IPL cured this within a week in India and propelled the IPL into the stratosphere with gate attendances and TV audiences commanding more money to put back into the tournament.
Regardless, thank you for showing me the way with your grasp of multiplication.
So how exactly did SA Rugby lose R5m on the Durban test? Or on second thought, and given a basic algebra lesson, would you care to concede this position? It does take a big man to admit when he is wrong after all. Maybe people will take more of a shine to you then.
VINNIE - I concede the Durban Test argument to you, and perhaps the 4,000 shortfall (by today’s reckoning) for tomorrows Test, but the other regional provincial games should have been packed to the rafter for the rugby fans!
Concession is not a one way street.
Certainly, I don’t think that any true South African rugby fan wants to see stadiums that are anything other than packed - myself included. I personally have some pretty strong views on the topic. This has never been at issue as far as I’m concerned. I don’t agree with most of the current SA Rugby administrations practices. I don’t think that many of us do.
You, however, lose any semblance of journalistic crediblity when you reach too far to make your point and draw inferences that you shouldn’t. It calls into question your own agenda which is clearly evident and it alienates readers that would otherwise support your position. I would venture to suggest that a more measured approach would win you more friends in future. There are more than enough blogs that air radical views for the sake of it. Some of them get away with it. You don’t.
VINNIE - Reaching too far…………own agenda………..Explain - how is my agenda known? That is a massive leap and an assumption I do not think would be accurate.
As you have ventured your opinion on the lost opportunity of 170,000 seats, so I have expressed mine, not opposite yours, but different to yours, so to get uppity when we have a difference of opinion, does not call into question journalistic credibility, but rather the ability of the writers, you included, to express their own viewpoints on a range of subjects, without getting too bent out of shape, in the same way Bakkies Botha hits a ruck.
I am not offended in the slightest by a bit of ribald comment. I am not necessarily right, but I do have an opinion, as do you yours.
Tony, you should be aware that given your attempted foray into rugby administration and your subsequent ejection from it, you can quite easily be perceived as a man with an axe to grind.
This perception is only furthered when you write articles with the incorrect balance and without any grasp of the figures which you bandy about - “R150 million gone in 60 minutes!” was another pearler, pure tabloid!
I don’t appreciate many of the current administrations practices and I do think that they should be taken to task. In fact I don’t disagree with everything that you say. But given the perceptions around you and your motivations, and your now established inability to do maths or reasonably apply the logic behind it, I think that your cause would be better served by expressing your opinions on matters which you have a better grasp of.
VINNIE - How is it then that the perception you put out is that you “do not appreciate many of the current administrations practices & they shhould be taken to task” is OK, yet you convert my opinion as “an axe to grind”? You really do have to have a balanced view point not a skewed one, if you toss out lines like that.
I will agree with you that R150m gone in 60 minutes is a pearler.
Not tabloid.
Fact.
So much so, the ARU and NZRU are revelling in this victory and can scarcely contain their glee.
On the subject of maths and logic.
Let me elaborate the massive surrendering of this R150m, which equates to a little over R2m per annum lost to each of SARU’s 14 Unions over a 5 year period. There is not a single Rugby Union that can afford to be without R2m per annum, especially over the next 5 years, but the chickens will come home to roost on this in February 2010.
Please indulge me and advise me what my motivations are, as I am sure you will discover we have more in common, on rugby matters that is, than we disagree on.
Quite simply I don’t have an axe to grind with SA Rugby because I don’t have a history with SA Rugby nor do I have any ambitions within SA Rugby. Therefore I have no ulterior motive. You on the other have a failed history in rugby administration as the only reference to your insight, motivation and ambitions.
I do suspect though that given his relative inexperience Andy Marinos is a little wet behind the ears to negotiate this level of commercial agreement, and that this position is detrimental and costly to all SA Rugby and the rugby loving public. Your logic in quantifying R150m is highly simplistic however and again does not display the level of objectivity expected of someone who expresses an opinion for a publication associated with the mail & guardian - at times appearing more suitable for keo.co.za.
In future why don’t you cut the conjecture and stick to the cold hard facts? If you must make a statement of opinion don’t frame it as fact. And if there is some level of investigation required to support a statement as factual, do the homework. Lastly, if you wish not to have your motivation questioned it is incumbent on you, and not on me, to make your agenda clear.
VINNIE - My, my suddenly you know what my ambitions and ulterior motives are. How odd that you should fly a kite like this! What are your ambitions and ulterior motives?
Then a concession on SA Rugby’s negotiating prowess or lack thereof.
What is simplistic in conceding 38% revenues to 33% and attaching a value to that? That is a fact.
You are off at a tangent and appear to rather want to make this a personal attack.
The cold hard facts are exactly what I have presented, you might not like it or agree with it, but it is what they are.
More facts to follow on the 28th July regarding the Rugby World Cup Bid.
What I do here Vincent, is reveal some aspects of the state of the game, that are little known or never explained, that I recall, that you in large part agree with, but are nevertheless suppressed or buried, not disclosed and regrettably these facts have a devastating financial effect on the game of rugby in South Africa.
I take issue with that, as it could be so easily be corrected. This is my agenda. There I have said it.
Of course it will be corrected in time, through various means, but count the cost of this time lapse and damage to the game staring us in the face today, that impacts the game of tomorrow. Is this too simplistic?
As with any commercial negotiation, in the renegotiation of SANZAR revenues there would have been a range of acceptable outcomes for each party - some of which are clearly more acceptable than others. I agree that 38% revenue split is certainly a more acceptable result than 33% as far as SA Rugby is concerned. Of course it is. This point is not up for debate.
But since you have now again made a statement of fact, what factual evidence do you have to support the position that 38% revenue to South Africa was an acceptable result for either of the other parties? Or are you simply assuming that the existing terms of the agreement could again be continued to the satisfactory approval of all parties concerned without any consideration to the changed circumstances of the other unions? Please answer this point.
Just so that you are not confused, I am not saying that SA Rugby could not have negotiated a higher level of revenue split (somewhere between a third and 38%)that would have been acceptable to all parties concerned, and more favourable to SA. Given Andy Marinos’ inexperience this was probably the case. I am however not making a sweeping statement of fact to suit a tabloid style headline that 38% could again be achieved, as I am not privvy to the inner discussions with either of NZ or AUS.
In that same article you make a number of other ludicrous statements to support your position that SA should have a sixth super rugby franchise. Again displaying your objectivity. If by random chance anyone else has stumbled across this blog, I would strongly suggest that you have a read of this article to understand the logic or lack thereof being applied. In reality SA Rugby is being diluted enough at the moment with five sides. How does it further SA Rugby’s aims having a third or fourth team propping up the log? It may suit you personally, it doesn’t suit SA Rugby. This is the sort of thing that keeps crowds away from stadiums.
well said Vincent. in not so many words it sounds like you are trying to say that we know Andy Marinos etc. are @ssholes but that this Tony is just an even bigger @sshole. or maybe that is just what I want to say.
VINNIE - I see now that you are not entirely familiar with the agreement struck in 2004 amongst the SANZAR partners, that set the terms for the 2006-2010 broadcast agreement and precedent for the 2011-2015 agreement. This was before SA Rugby capitulated to the ARU & NZRU.
This then from the past President of SA Rugby who struck the “38%” deal for an on behalf of SA Rugby. It helps give you an insight into what is going on:
FORMER South African Rugby Union (Saru) president Brian van Rooyen accused his successors of “handing SA’s crown jewels on a platter to its Sanzar partners” after agreeing to compromise on the Super 15 deal and described the new agreement as “laughable”.
Under the new deal SA will receive an equal 33% share of the broadcast revenue after receiving the lion’s share of 38% under the current deal.
This compromise, Van Rooyen said, would cost SA R137m in revenue over the next few years. NOTE: Not factored in here is the 10% year on year increase over 5 years.
Van Rooyen said controversial Australian Rugby boss John O’Neill, who was the instigator of the threats to break away from the Super 14, had succeeded in bullying SA into giving in to their demands.
“O’Neill has rescued Australian rugby at the expense of South African rugby,” said Van Rooyen. “When we negotiated the last broadcast deal in 2004, the Australasian unions wanted us to move the Currie Cup and settle for less than the 38% of the revenue. But we refused and walked out of the meeting and immediately boarded a plane to Singapore. By the time we arrived there, they had sent a fax saying they accepted our proposal.
“They told us the last time they wouldn’t break away because the broadcasters would not sign a contract without SA’s participation.”
Your comments on my position of South Africa having a 6th Super Rugby franchise, require a little educational.
Vinnie - I did not create the 6th franchise - that was a collective unanimous decision by a full SA Rugby Presidents Council meeting and Resolution on the 8th June 2005 - then drafted into a definitive agreement valid from 1 January 2006 to 30 May 2010.
I have previously posted the factual SA Rugby Super 14 Franchise Participation agreement right here on this column.
This is neither a figment of my imagination or, what did you say, “a number of other ludicrous statements to support your position that SA should have a sixth super rugby franchise”. They do have a 6th franchise and have had one since the commencement of this agreement.
to read the SA Rugby Franchise Participation Agreementwith all 6 South African franchises - and I am counting on you reading it to put into perspective what is indeed FACT.
Thanks for the additional content on the renegotiation Tony. Nice to hear Brian van Rooyen’s OPINION on the renegotiation too. Conveniently similar to your own too and perhaps an indicator of where your own political inclination lies (that’s rugby politics by the way not country politics - otherwise you sound remarkably like Julius Malema). All of this still not factual I’m afraid. The merits of Brian van Rooyen’s comments and opinion can also be debated. What a raving success story he was.
Regardless of any agreement to form a sixth franchise, your argument for it is laughable. What is the point of having a third or fourth team propping up the bottom of the super rugby log? PS. This is a rhetorical question. I don’t expect a sensical answer you. Therefore I don’t want any answer from you.
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that when you sell 95% of test tickets for almost triple the price, you are doing well financially. In the context of this, given the non-tests tickets are 10% of the price of test tickets, the fact that these weren’t all sold out is relatively inconsequential for the bottom line. Your argument about the world cup bid being jeopardised because of the commercial failure of the lions tour is therefore completely without basis - but I think we implicitly agreed this earlier when we agreed that you were wrong about the Durban test and cannot do basic maths. We may not get the world cup for other reasons, but not because the lions tour was a commercial failure.
The real story was that regardless of how much money is being made, it is not an acceptable position to have test tickets unsold and non tests significantly. Especially not for our world champions. Your story should have focused solely on this but you missed the boat. Instead you have, whether intentional or not, gotten greedy attempted to pad your story with other fictional numbers that you have miraculously plucked from thin air.
Vincent I have been reading your continuous inane badgering of McKeever in this post and you come across as a complete moron intent on just being a cantankerous windbag.
Your argument is nonsensical and I agree with McKeever that the British & Irish Lions Tour should have been a sellout.
It wasn’t and 170,000 unsold tickets is an indictment on SA Rugby’s contempt for its fans. If you think otherwise you are from Planet Zog. This was never about the failure of the Lions Tour but about the South African rugby fans being deprived.
I will wait for the IRB’s RWC bid annoouncement on the 28th July 3 days after the All Black Test in Bloem.
I have been following this whole lot too. Pretty bloody entertaining actually!
I am with Vincent on this though. Tony talks some sense but inbetween alot of nonsense so that you dont know what to believe but know you cant believe it all. A dangerous combination!
Sure Barry agreed that there are issues that should be discussed and it is good that these are brought to the surface. Tony just needs to get all his facts in order first or he loses face. His argument that all this money has been lost was from planet zog. You dont seem to have followed all the detail but it is all a little long winded now so thats not surpising.
Jonno, the facts of 170,000 unsold seats in the above article is indisputable. They were put out by the stadia and SuperSport.
It shocked me that so many should be unsold. That is a problem highlighted by the article. How is this being solved?
Now that McKeever has raised the subject or debate of unsold seats. I would be interested in the unsold seats of the Super 14 and keep an eye out for the 2009 Currie Cup.
As a matter of fact Yes McKeever did say that the lions tour was a commercial failure. He even said that this was going to deny South Africa the chance to host the world cup. I quote verbatim from Tony’s article:
“denied South Africa of a Rugby World Cup in 2015 or 2019 by revealing to the IRB that SA Rugby are unable to plan a commercially successful tour”
Well my English understanding of “unable to plan a commercially successful tour” certainly does not equal “commercial failure”. The latter are your words, not McKeevers and you should not then say he said them if he did not, as people would be inclined to say you are being economical with the truth.
VINNIE - Allow me to jump in here. Do not put words in my mouth - like commercial failure and try and pass it off as if I said them, so I am with Barry on this.
Unable to plan a commercially successful tour, has to be understood in the context of planning and this referenced the RWC.
The commercial failure or commercial success of the Lions Tour on the other hand, will be determined in a post audit of the tour and we should know more of this in a few weeks.
Regardless of the debate of these semantics, my issue quite simply is that we could have had 170,000 extra people attending the Lions Tour and this could have been and should have been accomplished with the appropriate planning, to enable the stadiums to be full, as in the IPL.
They learned in a week that full stadiums are the commercial clincher for on site stadium advertisers and broadcasters, who are selling viewership figures to their advertisers.
This problem will surface again when SANZAR sits with the broadcasters and tables the attendance figures of the Super 14. Not a good and happy picture to negotiate a new deal.
The way to fix that is with the appropriate planning, but that is the subject of a new post.
I’m not even going to ask you then to properly explain how your quoted comment could be interpreted in any other way than I have, and how I could have put words in your mouth. This debate is just getting too long in the tooth.
Suffice it to say that if you are now saying that your sole point is that South Africa could and should have had 170,000 extra people attending Lions games then I fully and unanimously agree with you on this. This is a point that I have never disputed and something which I feel strongly about. I don’t think there is anybody in South Africa that would disagree about this. It is absolute BS to have even one seat free for the test matches while certainly the non-tests should have been better attended.
Hi guys they were totally mad with the prices no wonder the weekday matches were so empty! Check out this new site http://www.sporttalk.co.za/ say your say and give your opinion!
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 ...
Yet more proof that those charged with running rugby in South Africa have very little regard for the fans and even less financial acumen. Consider also the money that could have been earned from merchandise sales and food stands at the games.
(Report abuse)