New Zealand follow revolutionary Rebels business model.


The NZRU will place advertisements this weekend in newspapers asking for expressions of interest to buy the licences for four of the New Zealand Super Rugby franchises.

Revolution in Super Rugby



IAIN McGREGOR/Fairfax Media
UP FOR GRABS: The Crusaders’ licence is available for purchase.

Other than the Highlanders, who the NZRU are exploring alternative options for, the New Zealand franchises are available to be licensed.

The owner of the franchise will manage and operate, as well as choose which players are on the team’s books, although their salaries are still paid by the NZRU.

The decision to progress with invitations to submit expressions of interest follows an independent review of Super Rugby and the franchises in New Zealand and a period of consultation with Provincial Unions and Franchises.

NZRU Chief Executive Steve Tew said considering a licensee arrangement for the franchises made sense as it would provide the additional capital required to ensure the success of the franchises on and off the field.

“This is an early phase to get a real view of the level of interest in an opportunity to be associated with New Zealand’s brand of rugby and what is considered to be the world’s best rugby competition,” Tew said.

“The overwhelming feedback during consultation clearly pointed to the need to reinvigorate the franchise model.

“This unique opportunity to manage and operate a Super Rugby team is an exciting development for New Zealand rugby.

“We are hoping this invitation will generate interest from a broad range of both rugby and non-rugby individuals, organisations and consortiums.”

The successful licensee will have the right to manage, operate, select and promote the team/brand and the matches played by that team.

Under the licensee proposal, the NZRU will continue to own the brands and be responsible for contracting players and coaches.

“For now we have agreed to allow the Highlanders to stand aside from the process as they are already some way down the track with exploring other alternatives which are commercially sensitive,” Tew said.

Interested parties have until March 9, 2012 to confirm their interest in being granted a licence to manage and operate a Super Rugby team.

Any decision to grant a licence is expected to be made by the NZRU Board midway through 2012 and will be made in the best interests of rugby in New Zealand.

Any changes proposed would not be in place before the 2013 season. The 2012 Super Rugby competition is unaffected.

If suitable licensee candidates are identified, they will be shortlisted and the NZRU may then issue a request for proposal inviting the submission of detailed proposals.

Once these proposals have been evaluated, the NZRU may enter discussions with one or more preferred respondents.

– Stuff

Facebook Comments


  1. Is this the only way forward in RSA… or would current enforced BEE RSA business/mining ownership policies be too detrimental?

  2. Not sure this is going to work for NZ. Buy the name but no management and control…

    In any event NZ is a poor country. It is doubtful they’d be able to attract major league investors.

    By the same token one expects if SARU had the guts a simnilar move in South Africa would reap massive rewards.

  3. Reply to Morné @ 9:09 am:

    Oh I’m well aware of that mate hence the post…

    Reply to DavidS @ 10:41 am:

    “In any event NZ is a poor country. It is doubtful they’d be able to attract major league investors.”

    Nope not really in both respects… but from a rugby perspective… the AB’s command the highest value tenders from all the rugby sponsors… it will extend to the Crusaders type brands… and do not be surprised to see some Investec type coys buying into the brands as they already do rather than invest in their own country of origin…

  4. Reply to DavidS @ 10:41 am: Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 3:50 pm:

    Remember this is not limited to NZ companies, US, and specifically the big Asian companies can also pull in – imagine Toyota, Toshiba, Panasonic or all those companies pulling in?

    The Toshiba Crusaders will play a couple of games in Japan as their home games and Toshiba’s name is on our TV screens for 7 months watched by millions…

    This is a killer deal, NZ rugby will soon poach SA’s best talent – mark my words.

  5. Reply to Morné @ 7:02 pm:


    Uhum you must be joking?

    Why would US companies go to a little speck of volcanic stone and invest in a regional team that may bring them coverage in THREE countries that together are less than some states…

    I cannot for the life of me see a US company buying a slice of NZ rugby…

    And have you ever been to Asia?


    Rugby means f**kall in those countries

    Keep on dreaming.

  6. Let me say this

    The cartel of NZ rugby and its supposed dominance of world rugby died in 2011 in the world cup… the last NZ will ever win…

    From here on in they’re on the same slope as us and it is DOWNhill.

    All the way…

    That and the fact that from now on they’ll get fuckall sympathy from anyone in the IRB because of their arrogance…

  7. Sounds more and more like the
    IPL Cricket shit dished up in
    Surely the expertise to manage and
    coach a team is not available in
    Toyota, Investec, Panasonic etc.?

  8. Reply to DavidS @ 10:21 pm:

    IF rugby means fokall to big companies in Japan for example why is Jacque getting R22 million for two seasons and FDP reportedly more?

    This was inevitable in NZ and in Aus…

  9. Interesting idea and why not. The Kiwis need the money to stay competitive against losing players overseas, etc…even after the RWC so called bonanza.

    although their salaries are still paid by the NZRU? This is the odd part, surely you hand everything over or is NZRU still hoping for some control or say in the final team.

    South Africa has too much politics in sport to pull something like this off. Imagine the Crusaders with no kiwi born players in the team.

  10. Reply to DavidS @ 10:21 pm:

    You are more clever than this.

    NZ Rugby is commercially the most successful brand in rugby in the world, their stars’ faces promoting your brand? Worth millions.

    The Super Rugby competition runs for 7 months – that is one hell of a long period. It is watched by millions. The likes of the companies I mentioned are all international companies with a footprint on all the continents. Promoting their brands won’t be targeted to the originating countries or where HQ is based only, but where they ship to and where they sell which is all over the world.

    Otherwise why would Toyota, a Japanese company sponsor the country cousins in Bloem?

  11. But Bryce it makes sense for Japan to spend more and more cash on pro rugby AT HOME, and all the examples you mention are of players who have been playing in Japan.

    There are a legion of others like Tony Brown and Jaco Van Der Westhuizen who have also plied their trade in Japan… Jerome Kaino also plied his trade there for a while.

    But to answer you and Morne.

    Japan is NOT in good shape financially ESPECIALLY after the tsunami.

    I simply cannot see why Panasonic would spend big bucks on football (which they do) and on F1 (which they do) and would diversify into rugby … and the reason to invest in a sport which would NOT give them all that high an international advertizing coverage simply does not make sense.

    Consider for instance that the the mighty Springboks struggled last year to get a main sponsor after SASOL canned their deal with the Bokke.

    Think of it… This is the Springboks who are probably the second most marketable brand in international rugby… NO Panasonic, No Samsung, No Toyota… zippo stepped forward…

    Think of New Zealand… who exactly in the past SIX years has stepped in to sponsor the S15 sides in New Zealand?


    ESPECIALLY not anyone internationally.

    In New Zealand the national side has NO jersey sponsor and aside from once having Stein Lager they have never been able to sell their jersey space. The FIVE sides mentioned have in the past had local village companies sponsor them… The Blues once had Ford, but at the moment the title sponsor for ALL the NZ teams is … Australia New Zealand Bank (ANZ)…

    At best the expected sponsors could be large corporates in countries which have an intensive rugby coverage through advertizing. At best the Kiwis can hope for Investec to help…

    As for title sponsorship from the USA… in all honesty… that is a joke… the Eagles cannot even get sponsorship assistance from the US Olympic Committee never mind a commercial sponsor.

    Sorry guys but the Crusaders may be the Manchester United of Super 14 performance wise BUT are not the Manchester United of club rugby when it comes to having a name on a shirt…

    The Anglo-Saxon Old boys club dealt rugby a mortal blow by awarding New Zealand the 2011 Rugby World Cup AND allowing that corrupt Paddy NoBrain and mates to literally buy New Zealand a World Cup…

    Believe me… the way Ireland, Wales, South Africa, Romania, Georgia, Russia, Japan and even France were treated by referees caused massive damage to rugby for prospective spectators.


    1. Don’t kid yourselves… rugby ain’t THAT popular and more especially in places which have cash like Japan and the USA.

    2. There is a global credit crunch means US and Japanese and European companies are tight fisted with money to spend.

    3. Advertizers need “more bang for their buck” so the chance of enticing say an “Oracle” or “St Paul’s Insurance” or “3M” or “Chrysler” (just random examples) to invest in a sport outside New Zealand where their coverage will get nowhere near the amount of a simple national advertizing campaign in the US is not very big… in fact from a money spend perspective it is senseless.

    Likeliest outcome is that large coprorations with a GOOD FOOTPRINT IN New Zealand ONLY will offer sponsorship, my prediction will be maybe Kiwi Banks (Like ANZ or BNZ), Beer Companies (Steinie Green or Canterbury Draught), Insurers like AAMI, and of course the now ubiquitous tobacco company replacements… the mobile phone companies like Vodafone… Oh and of course maybe an airline… As mentioned at best a company like Investec would sponsor…

    The same is exactly what happened with the Rebels…

    The Kiwis have shot their bolt… this is not “revolutionizing” anything… this is desperation to escape a self created financial disaster of overinvesting in hosting a tournament a small poor country New Zealand could never have achieved successfully and profitably…

    In short

    The Kiwis have shot their wad with this World Cup and I for one am smugly happy…

  12. Reply to DavidS @ 12:20 pm:

    There is a rather big difference from being a sponsor or title sponsor (names on jersey’s and a couple of perimeter boards) and owning a franchise license.

    Your arguments are centered around that of a title sponsor, owning the license to the franchise means being an owner of that brand/team.

    You become part of the day-to-day decision making processes of that organisation, not just the 80 minutes we see every weekend from a title sponsor perspective.

    This one line tells you the massive difference between a license owner, and a title sponsor like Ford, Investec, etc.

    The owner of the franchise will manage and operate, as well as choose which players are on the team’s books, although their salaries are still paid by the NZRU.

    Big difference Dawie.

  13. Reply to Morné @ 12:55 pm:

    The owner of the franchise will manage and operate, as well as choose which players are on the team’s books,
    Sounds very much like SA – where rugby is ruled
    by amateurs without business sense.
    So in NZ it will be ruled by professionals who know
    nothing about rugby.
    Same result.

  14. Reply to Boertjie @ 1:29 pm:

    I think you got that slightly confused.

    In SA the franchises are run by amateurs, who has absolutely no business sense and most of the time I question their rugby sense.

    Have a business consortium run a franchise and at least you know the business side is checked.

    One of the biggest reasons Gumede pulled out of the Lions is that he wanted his own people in the business side of the business, Lions amateur ranks refused wanting to safeguard their boeties cushy jobs.

    Also remember any business going into a venture like this will have to answer to their investors if things go wrong or bad business decisions are made – something that does not exist in rugby yet – zero accountability.

  15. No I’m with Boertjie on this one Morne.


    Exactly what mileage does a “franchise owner” possibly get from owning a team?

    Unless they can attach their name to it or their corporation’s name zip eff all.

    So it will HAVE to be the say Ford Crusaders or Panasonic Hurricanes for there to be any value for a franchise operator.

    Rugby by definition in the way the dumbateurs of the post 1995 era have run it is a loss maker in every sense save television rights.

    Appointing professionals has not made such a huge difference if one looks at France and Britain and Scotland and Ireland. Same old same old when it comes to the top clubs.

    Unless one can associate your brand with the rugby side I see no value to owning a franchise to a rugby team for a potential franchise owner, unless, like India’s IPL nonsense, it is done on the basis of overly wealthy egomaniacs trying to use the club to leverage their own dick length… and let me say it right out.

    There is no such individual in New Zealand.

  16. Just to add to what Timeo said.

    It is all well and good to have footprint into Asia and Europe, but the consistent issue with rugby is its exclusivity, so yes sure any European or Asian RUGBY fan will know who the Crusaders are or who the All Blacks are but ask Yin Chang in Beijing who the Crusaders are and he will not know. Similarly ask Chip Johnson of Akron Ohio and he will tell you they were the first guys to kill gawdanged Ayrab Muslim terrorist heathens two hundred years ago…

    It serves no purpose being a franchise operator to an existing market when the reason for the advertising is to EXPAND your market.


    I said this right at the start of this discussion.

    From a marketing perspective to a prospective franchise owner, buying a team’s name without any benefit to your own brand is purposeless. AND added to that if it were about the money the best way to get it would be sponsor a jersey and emblazon your logo all over it.

    Before they sponsored Man U nobody outside the US even knew who AIG was unless your were in insurance.

    Nobody knows the guy who owns Man U either…

    But it is a guy and he does it for dick measurement purposes, NOT for marketing mileage.

    All team owners do.

    I stand by what I said.

    This is a desperate attempt by NZ rugby to get cash in because RWC 2011 was a disaster from financial viewpoint for New Zealand.

  17. Reply to DavidS @ 3:26 pm:

    Thats like asking ‘what’s the point of buying a McDonald’s franchise’

    Quite simple, you don’t own the whole caboodle, but you own your own entity within it. And it’s up to you to make that franchise work.

  18. That means although you won’t own Super Rugby or rugby, you own a ‘shop’ within it.

    And BTW, looking at the money thrown around in the French rugby league I reckon ownership counts for a hell of a lot.

    This to me is the start of actual professionalism in SH rugby – long overdue.

  19. I am struggling…

    What don’t you folks get about OWNING the team? This is not some piss willy sponsorship deal.

    NZ will continue their central contracting scheme (SA to follow soon btw) but individuals, consortiums or corporates owns the teams/franchises.

  20. No No No you misunderstand.

    With Mickey Dees you get a chance to make money by the number of sales… and you basically just pay royalties. And you’re a startup entrepreneur.

    Why would a Panasonic or Nissan want to do that?

    You don’t see Spur group buy a Barcelos franchise do you?

  21. Laat ek dit so stel:

    Hoeveel sê het DHL in WP rugby, of
    gee hulle ‘n klomp geld en sê fok voort
    – solank ons naam op die trui is?

    Hoe die WP bestuur word, is allesbehalwe
    ‘n voordeel vir DHL se naam.

  22. This is just more typical WESSA crap where we have an inferiority complex about everything connected with the way other countries run their rugby little realizing that we are NOT as bad as everyone else… and even those other nations like NZ get it wrong..

    So we’re just defaulting by saying

    Kiwis are franchising their unions ergo they are geniuses and we are dumb Broederbond Drooling Dutchmen following behind… little realizing that every single major play innovation of the past ten years have come from South Africa or that SARU has not had any wobbles under Regan Hoskins and seen the South African Super 15 sides perform progressively better since the Rian Oberholzer and Brian Van Ruin days.

  23. If a billionaire consortium was so readily on hand to buy the Melbourne Rebels model… punters will be champing at the bits to buy the likes of the Crusaders…

    Business arms will be run by proven icons with business acumen and the rugby by the coach’s… team will now have an extra capital base on top of their Super money handouts which most teams live by and the end of the day…

    This is a revolution for Southern Hemisphere rugby particularly the S15…

  24. Reply to DavidS @ 7:19 pm: Reply to DavidS @ 7:30 pm:

    This is NOT (just) a marketing exercise, this is buying a business.

    Rugby is a business, a very lucrative one at that as-well (if managed properly) regulated like any other business in the world (IRB, SANZAR, NZRU, SARU etc).

    How is this different from what we currently have?

    We won’t have a Harold Verster as the CEO of Cheetahs PTY (running at a loss every year), we will have a Rupert, Ackerman etc.

  25. Reply to Morné @ 9:49 am:

    I don’t see it happening for the reasons I have already said.

    France and England and Scotland and Ireland have NOT become world beaters since “going pro” and getting “businessmen” to run their clubs.

    If anything post 2003 they have stayed exactly where they are and the Rebels with all their millions are STILL importing players developed in the old style of amateurs managing useless waste of skins to bolster themselves

    The same is in France and England and France where it is even worse… the so-called “professional businessman era” has resulted in jerseys that look like Formula 1 Cars covered with ads and imported players from South Africa, Samoa, Fiji, New Zealand and Australia in an incessant hunt for winnings at the cost of own development… and of course players being contracted from those stupid useless amateur run unions like SARU, Samoa, Fiji, NZRU and ARU.


    Evidence indicates you are wrong and the Kiwi “franchiose” sale is a recipe for out of control contracting and repression of upcoming talent in a hunt for money and success at all costs.

    This will bite NZRU in the back… and deservingly so.

  26. Reply to DavidS @ 10:58 am:

    Unions in South Africa (and I would imagine in NZ) are on the verge of bankruptcy, i.e. they will no longer be around if something does not get done.

    SA Rugby is done bailing these guys out, the question then is can we afford to lose these unions?

    The appeal of international test rugby has dropped, even the RWC lost its sparkle in players wanting to stay/play in their country in order to represent them.

    Success on the park is an after-effect of success in the boardroom. Remember rugby is only 15-years professional so while it might take England, France etc time to get it right, they will soon rule the roost if we do not wake up.

    We seem to feel safe in our own glasshouses because we still beat them on the park more often than not, but if we allow rugby to go bankrupt in SH countries who cannot afford to compete with R10-million or R11-million annual contracts offered by these European or Asian clubs it most certainly will.

    It is not going to get better for the SH, while professionalism is growing in Europe, the pressure on all SH countries will increase until it will reach a breaking point.

    Players are not interested in 12 tests a year (for financial benefit), they are interested in the AVIVA Premiership, French Top 14, Heineken Cup etc. – competitions that runs for months on end from which they can make a living.

    We need to look after Super Rugby because soon players will no longer be interested to play in them either as NH competitions and clubs offers these guys double what they earn in the SH.

    And to look after Super Rugby we need capital investments.

    To date, 80% of union budgets are spent on player salaries in the SH, they cannot pay these guys more as things stand. I will make you a bet that in the next 24 months NZ will drop their rule not to select overseas based players. The new Bok coach will also pick overseas based players, they have to.

    We will lose the likes of Jaque more frequently if we do not wake up – NZ realised this.

  27. I find myself agreeing with both.
    It makes more sense to have the business side
    run by profit orientated professionals.
    Howewer ,that doesn’t garantee success on the pitch.
    he two worlds overlap and have to be perfectly
    harmonized to be a success.
    Man U,Real Madrid,New york yankees ect are enormously
    successfull at both.

  28. By the same token Morne, the Rebels and teams like Liverpool and Arsenal prove that no matter how good your financial muscle is you still need the players on the field to deliver for you or you’re not going to achieve anything….

  29. And Chelsea of course.

    Best example.

    Duiwel is 100% right… you need to harmonize management with onfield performance.

    And therein lies the danger. Whilst the likes of Man U have existed for many years like Ajax Amsterdam and the NY Yankees and whatever team you care to name, the truth is that the expectation of owners will be for the team to deliver winnings from Day 1 and justify their purchase… and that will mean buying the best players from Day 1… and whilst Man U and Barcelona can afford to have extensive youth recruitment facilities like Sharks Academy on a massive scale, and are universally successful, a rugby team will need to develop its own structures whilst performing best and like in Europe there is every likelihood that development will be ignored on the expedient of immediate success.

    I stand by what I said.

    France and England have been totally professional with team owners and the like for ten years and are yet to establish any sort of dominance over SH rugby teams.

    JF is a poor choice given that Japanese season runs the same way Europe’s does and shorter which will make him eligible for Bok selection in 4N…

    More of a case of what I believe the best way forward s for South Africa than for us to wholesale copy a flawed structure that will eventually fail New Zealand.

    I gotta go out now but I’ll expand later.

  30. Yes Miertjie,
    i realise that.

    Maybe my diction is difficult to understand.

    As correct in your analysis that you are:

    Reply to Duiwel @ 11:14 am:
    “It does not matter how good you are on the pitch if you have to close your doors as a business”

    as blatantly evident is
    if you don’t have success on the pich
    fewer people buy your
    cheap china shit
    with your logo on.

    Success bears on the shoulders of men
    that need to win,
    hence needing a certain level of skill
    which is hampered
    by national politics,
    grass root investment, and education,
    coaching and the ifrastructure to manage and evolve
    foresight which ,is largely lapsing
    in the brannewynbrigade.
    like everybody else.
    Even with the knocks
    the springbok jersy sells
    here at about 60 euros.
    Cheaper than the AB gear.

    When all those factors unite consistantly
    you have a massive success
    on the pitch
    and the sales and shareholding.
    On various levels.
    even doing everything right
    the result on the pitch
    reflects into money.
    We need to stop passing the buck.

    And win.

    ALMAL moet vinger uit die
    poepol trek
    en professioneel wees.

  31. Before I pop out.

    My Krav Maga instructor has been invited to do a seminar in CT this weekend.

    Morne and Boer and the rest of you guys in CT.

    I can highly recommend attendance if only to get a few basics. ESPECIALLY the child bully proofing and anti rape techniques to help the ones you love in an emergency.

    Call Des Brown on 076 533 9715 or email

    Elite Defence Academy

  32. Reply to DavidS @ 2:04 pm: Reply to Duiwel @ 2:05 pm:

    Of course on-field success determines the success of the business as it would any business who has to bring the bacon home at the end of the day and be competitive in the market it operates in.

    Here is the reality though.

    Never before have unions in SA (and entire SH) spend as much money on players as they currently do.

    It (as mentioned above) makes up 80% of their total budget, and as Heyneke Meyer said, there is no way in hell they can increase that otherwise everything else in the union will fall to pieces.

    Current revenue streams are very limited given the restrictions at hand for investors. As it stands, no individual or company can own more than 50% of any union in SA. TV revenue streams are pre-determined and set and title sponsors are limited in deciding how their money is spent (Gumede’s big gripe at the time) so squeezing the extra dollars of current revenue streams is virtually impossible.

    As Dawie pointed out the ‘marketing’ aspect of outside companies getting involved is limited, there is only so much ROI you will get from having your name printed on team jersey’s.

    Against all of this player salaries are increasing dramatically every single year. Rugby not only has to compete with itself and all the competitions out there but also other global sports (and here I am specifically referring to TV coverage which is any sponsors most valued consideration before committing to any sponsorship deal).

    SH rugby has all but reached its threshold on their ability to somehow compete on player salaries hence the ridiculous expansions of Super Rugby (something every knows is stupid) and Tri-Nations.

    If they do not allow for some form of private ownership like selling of franchise licenses (remember this is not selling off union shares) the gap will continue to grow and at some stage reach a tipping point where we can no longer compete at all.

    NZ is doing this for one simple reason, more money. More money means they can offer players competitive deals and keep their players in NZ.

    Keeping players in NZ means they will remain competitive off the pitch.

    If this is not done, we will soon play Super Rugby with Vodacom Cup players as they will be all we can afford. This will affect rugby at higher levels too, where SA, NZ and Aus will become like African soccer, only having access to their top stars in Europe in FIFA (or IRB) approved window periods for test matches a week before the game.

    The game locally will die.

    It is inevitable.

  33. Happy with that.
    excep tthe dying part.

    Football never died locally ,due to profesionalism
    or salaries,player,management or direction,
    or shares.

    au contraire.
    But half Union-half business havereached its threshold.
    The money says
    go large or go home.

    Clubs rule.
    Global season.

    Let the union only dictate
    on internationals.

    Not the global season.
    Run it as a business,
    the internationals less
    and tours
    and the world cup

    They have to fit into a global Cup seasonn.
    Lets take the game up a level.

  34. Reply to Morné @ 3:26 pm:

    And, as I’ve mentioned before:
    In 1994 we were ranked 2nd in the world.
    Bafana won the African Nations cup.
    This year the could not qualify, even with
    SA hosting the tournament.
    As for the Olympics: The u.23 team qualified
    once only.

    Turn your attention on the self-enrichment
    and money wasting that goes with cricket
    and soccer, swimming, Olympic Committee etc. etc.

    As one of the new rich said: “I did not take part
    in the struggle to stay poor.”
    He should have added: “… and f*ck the poor.”

  35. The general gist of Dawie’s comments are correct.

    Sports team ownership is about ego, not profits. The team is a very expensive toy. It is better for the sport that way. Corporations want ROI. Marketing is where they spend money and investment is where they expect to make it. Thus they serve the sport best as sponsors, not owners.

    The danger for the unions are that the big-ego owners will want more control and will soon fire the unions and take over the sport.

    That 80% number is surely unsustainable. The NFL operates at around 60% and the NBAs current dispute is about the owners wanting a salary cap at 50%.
    Rugby Union accounting though, seems to have nothing in common with reality so I strongly suspect the 80% number is bogus.

  36. Washington Post Staff Writers
    Saturday, January 8, 2005; Page A01

    As the National Football League playoffs begin today, culminating in the Super Bowl on Feb. 6 in Jacksonville, Fla., the 32 team owners have much to gloat about. They just concluded another record-setting regular season in which league revenue climbed to $5.2 billion and recently brokered the richest television deal in sports history.

    But there is mounting concern within the league that the economic model that has made professional football the dominant sports league in the United States may be at risk.

    Led by Daniel Snyder of the Washington Redskins and Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys, a growing number of NFL owners are questioning the league’s once sacrosanct business code under which a large portion of revenue — the vast majority of it raised through TV broadcast rights — is to be shared equally among the franchises.

    Under the system, every NFL owner starts the year on a level playing field, with nearly $100 million from NFL broadcast rights, national NFL sponsorships with companies such as Gatorade, and a redistributed portion of ticket sales. This all-for-one-and-one-for-all spirit, its supporters say, has been the backbone of the NFL’s economic and competitive success, since it spreads the wealth and helps give every team, from the Packers in tiny Green Bay, Wis., to the Giants in metropolitan New York, a shot at winning a title — and turning a nice profit.

    Snyder, Jones and about a half-dozen other owners, however, are asking just how much of its enormous revenue the league should continue to share evenly. They argue that the existing model can reduce incentives among more entrepreneurial owners who are generating enormous sums on their own through local marketing, promotional and broadcast deals. This unshared revenue is estimated to have swelled to about $2 billion a year.

    “Whether you are a small market or a large market, you have to manage the business like any other industry, controlling costs, getting value for the money you spend and being sure you are giving your customers a quality product,” Kraft said. “If we don’t maintain our entrepreneurial spirit, then our league will die.”

    Kraft added, “We should have a revenue sharing system that preserves what we have always been doing, but I don’t think there should be any free lunches.”

    Upshaw said during a recent interview that if some owners are mismanaging their franchises, the NFL should fix the problem. “I told Jerry [Jones] in Detroit, if they have some owners who are non-performers, they should do what they do to . . . players, and cut them. The revenue sharing has to be solved. They have to be creative and find a way to make this work.”

    The NFL’s complicated economics works like this: Every owner starts out with nearly $100 million a year each from national television and radio contracts, national sponsorships and one-third of ticket revenue from each game played, which is pooled and redistributed equally among all teams. The clubs also receive equal portions from a 12 percent royalty on every NFL-branded piece of merchandise. In all, about $3 billion of the $5.2 billion pot is shared equally.

    Under the current collective bargaining agreement, which expires at the end of the 2007 season, an annual ceiling is placed on player payrolls, the single biggest cost item for every franchise. In 2004, that per-team salary cap was $80.58 million, or about 65 percent of defined league revenues.

    After the $100 million distribution from the league, teams are largely on their own.

    What generally distinguishes the Cowboys, Patriots, Redskins and a few other franchises from less well-off teams is that they play in new stadiums in big, wealthy markets with loyal fans. Snyder, for example, owns FedEx Field and has turned the Redskins into the highest-grossing team in football, with revenue that outpaces the Arizona Cardinals by an estimated $100 million a year. The Cardinals have one of the worst stadium deals in the league and are building a new, state-of-the-art facility.

    But it is not just the stadium. Texas Stadium, where the Cowboys play, is outdated, but the Cowboys are one of the league’s richest franchises. What also sets Snyder, Jones and some of the other owners apart is their knack for creating additional revenue opportunities outside the normal channels of tickets and broadcasting. They share an aggressive posture in which they tap into income sources such as stadium naming rights, luxury suites and sponsorships, local radio and television deals, pre- and post-game clubs, corporate entertainment and even schemes such as away-game travel, where fans pay to travel with the team.

    When the Redskins’ and Cowboys’ cheerleaders aren’t on the field or at team events, they model swimsuits for team calendars. The Eagles’ cheerleaders model for Philadelphia’s calendar wearing lingerie.

    In this respect, the rich-poor divide is cultural and generational as well, pitting some of the league’s old guard such as the Steelers and Giants — franchises that have been owned by one family for decades — against younger, newer owners. The Giants, Steelers, Bears and Detroit Lions don’t even have cheerleaders.

    The Redskins’ annual revenue has increased from more than $100 million a year when Snyder took over the team in 1999 to around $245 million. Forbes magazine estimates that the Redskins, which Snyder bought for $800 million, are worth more than $1 billion now, thanks largely to Snyder’s marketing savvy and squeeze-in-every-seat approach at FedEx Field. Snyder has added around 12,000 seats, boosting the stadium’s capacity to 91,665, the biggest in the NFL.

    Of course, none of that has helped the Redskins on the field. They have only one winning season since 1999. Indeed, eight of this year’s 12 playoff teams were in the bottom half of league revenues in 2003, based on the Forbes study. The bottom-half teams include the Steelers, who have a 15-1 record and are favored by many to win the Super Bowl.

    It bolsters the argument by some that NFL success has more to do with management than money.

    “There is no correlation between high-revenue teams and winning percentage,” McNair said. “And no correlation between salaries paid and winning percentage. We have a good balance in the NFL and the number of teams in the highest payroll quartile are located in the lowest quartile of revenue teams.”

    What extra cash can do is enable teams to spend their way around the restraints of the salary cap — at least over the short term — by restructuring players’ contracts by putting cash in the players’ pockets in the form of one-time bonuses in exchange for lowering their immediate salary impact against the cap. There is a saying in the league that “cash solves cap,” and the NFL’s salary cap is a soft ceiling that can be exceeded.

    The Redskins finished this season with a 6-10 record despite a league-record payroll of $120 million.

    The NFL’s wealthier teams are far from reaching a Yankees-like status in which their financial advantage has translated into a competitive advantage. But Rooney, the Steelers’ owner, and others say they are fearful the league may get to that point.

    “We’re not there yet. Any team can win and does win,” said Rooney, whose family has presided over the Steelers for 71 years. “But we might reach a point somewhere down the line where that’s not the case any longer.”

  37. “Whether you are a small market or a large market, you have to manage the business like any other industry, controlling costs, getting value for the money you spend and being sure you are giving your customers a quality product,” Kraft said. “If we don’t maintain our entrepreneurial spirit, then our league will die.”

    The Redskins’ annual revenue has increased from more than $100 million a year when Snyder took over the team in 1999 to around $245 million. Forbes magazine estimates that the Redskins, which Snyder bought for $800 million, are worth more than $1 billion now, thanks largely to Snyder’s marketing savvy and squeeze-in-every-seat approach at FedEx Field. Snyder has added around 12,000 seats, boosting the stadium’s capacity to 91,665, the biggest in the NFL.

  38. It bolsters the argument by some that NFL success has more to do with management than money.

    “There is no correlation between high-revenue teams and winning percentage,” McNair said. “And no correlation between salaries paid and winning percentage. We have a good balance in the NFL and the number of teams in the highest payroll quartile are located in the lowest quartile of revenue teams.”

  39. What extra cash can do is enable teams to spend their way around the restraints of the salary cap — at least over the short term — by restructuring players’ contracts by putting cash in the players’ pockets in the form of one-time bonuses in exchange for lowering their immediate salary impact against the cap. There is a saying in the league that “cash solves cap,” and the NFL’s salary cap is a soft ceiling that can be exceeded.

  40. The article is 6 years old.

    Since then the salary cap and revenue sharing agreement has stayed and the NFL continues to thrive.

    Two important points:
    Excluding The Green Bay Packers.
    -There are no union. The NFL is an organization owned and controlled by the team owners.
    -There are no corporate owners. All teams (except one) are owned by groups of rich individuals or families with one major shareholder that act as owner.

    Rugby would probably do well to look at the Green Bay system since they have achieved success whilst maintaining the structure that have it roots in a semi-pro community based team. Operating as a non-profit corporation.

  41. Coupled to which most New Zealanders as simply do not have the financial wherewithal to purchase a team franchise operating license – the object of which is to save union in New Zealand – AND any corporate purchaser is going to need to make some sort of financial ROI which is not likely if they were say Japanese or American based with a small footprint in union dominated countries (there is only New Zealand) and I maintain the entire “franchise” system is no more than a desperate attempt by NZRU to get money investment to save their rugby and recoup the damaging financial losses they incurred in arrogantly hoisting a World Cup their small island could not afford.

  42. Reply to DavidS @ 8:07 pm:

    Dude, when it comes to money, we are as desperate as NZ to stay afloat.

    Their reason is money, their official statement stated this clearly – still, I see this as a plus for NZ rugby and something SA rugby should do/have done ages ago.

  43. Timeo,
    that was my point.
    on the 80% issue.
    They have been evolving and thriving
    as a sport
    and making top dollar.
    Cut away the drift.
    Give the unions the international tours and world cup tit
    to suck on.
    Global club season.
    champions league.
    The whole fkn works.
    Use CC as the natinal benchmark.
    4 sides.


    Update 2010
    The highest paid player in the world is Sebastien Chabal, who earns $1.8 million a season for Paris club Racing Metro.

    Old answer
    They don’t earn anywhere near as much as footballers. The average wage is between 150-300 k a year with the highest possibly going on to earn just short of a million a year.
    Currently the highest paid player is Matt Giteau earning the above amount of around a 750k – a million.

  45. No. 3 LeBron James
    $48 million
    Age: 26

    His jersey was the NBA’s bestseller this season, and he has the No. 1 basketball shoe on the market. James received a small stake in Fenway Sports Group-owned soccer club Liverpool in April when he partnered with FSG to manage his business interests.

  46. 01 Cristiano Ronaldo Real Madrid CF Soccer 10 years (2008-2017) $1,350,000,000 $17,000,000 $400,000 [1][2]
    02 Lionel Messi Barcelona FC Soccer 8 years (2008-2016) $400,000,000 $18,600,000 $500,000 [3][4][5][6]
    03 Alex Rodriguez New York Yankees Baseball 10 years (2008-2017) $275,000,000 $27,500,000 $169,753.09 [7]
    04 Alex Rodriguez1 Texas Rangers Baseball 10 years (2001-2010) $249,000,000 $25,200,000 $155,555.56 [8]
    05 Derek Jeter New York Yankees Baseball 10 years (2001-2010) $189,000,000 $18,900,000 $116,666.67 [9]
    06 Joe Mauer Minnesota Twins Baseball 08 years (2011-2018) $184,000,000 $23,000,000 $141,975.31 [10]
    07 Mark Teixeira New York Yankees Baseball 08 years (2009-2016) $180,000,000 $22,500,000 $138,888.89 [11]
    08 CC Sabathia New York Yankees Baseball 07 years (2009-2015) $161,000,000 $23,000,000 $141,975.31 [12]
    09 Manny Ramírez Boston Red Sox* Baseball 08 years (2001-2008) $160,000,000 $20,000,000 $123,456.79 [13]
    10 Troy Tulowitzki Colorado Rockies Baseball 10 years (2011-2020) $157,750,000 $15,775,000 $97,376.54 [14]
    11 Adrián González Boston Red Sox Baseball 07 years (2012-2018) $154,000,000 $22,000,000 $135,802.67 [15]
    12 Kimi Räikkönen Ferrari Auto racing 03 years (2007-2009) $153,000,000 $51,000,000 $2,942,307.69 [16]
    13 Miguel Cabrera Detroit Tigers Baseball 08 years (2008-2015) $152,300,000 $19,037,500 $117,515.43 [17]
    14 Todd Helton Colorado Rockies Baseball 11 years (2001-2011) $151,500,000 $13,772,727 $85,016.83 [18]
    15 Carl Crawford Boston Red Sox Baseball 07 years (2011-2017) $142,000,000 $20,285,714 $125,220.46 [19]
    16 Johan Santana New York Mets Baseball 06 years (2008-2013) $137,500,000 $22,916,667 $141,460.91 [20]
    17 Kobe Bryant Los Angeles Lakers Basketball 07 years (2004-2011) $136,400,000 $19,485,714 $237,630.66 [21]
    18 Alfonso Soriano Chicago Cubs Baseball 08 years (2007-2014) $136,000,000 $17,000,000 $104,938.27 [22]
    19 Michael Vick3 Atlanta Falcons* American football 10 years (2005-2014) $130,000,000 $13,000,000 $812,500.00 [23]
    20 Jermaine O’Neal Indiana Pacers* Basketball 07 years (2003-2010) $126,558,000 $18,079,714 $220,484.32 [24]
    21 (tie) Kevin Garnett Minnesota Timberwolves* Basketball 06 years (1999-2005) $126,000,000 $21,000,000 $256,097.56 [25]
    21 (tie) Barry Zito San Francisco Giants Baseball 07 years (2007-2013) $126,000,000 $18,000,000 $111,111.11 [26]
    21(tie) Vernon Wells Toronto Blue Jays* Baseball 07 years (2008-2014) $126,000,000 $18,000,000 $111,111.11 [27]
    21 (tie) Rashard Lewis Orlando Magic* Basketball 06 years (2007-2013) $126,000,000 $21,000,000 $256,097.56 [28]
    21 (tie) Jayson Werth Washington Nationals Baseball 07 years (2011-2017) $126,000,000 $18,000,000 $111,111.11 [29]
    22 Ryan Howard Philadelphia Phillies Baseball 05 years (2013-2017) $125,000,000 $25,000,000 $154,320.99 [30]
    23 (tie) Michael Schumacher Ferrari Auto racing 04 years (1996-1999) $124,000,000 $31,000,000 $1,907,692.30 [31]
    23 (tie) Alexander Ovechkin Washington Capitals Ice hockey 13 years (2008-2021) $123,000,000 $9,538,461 $116,322.70 [32]
    24 Chris Webber Sacramento Kings* Basketball 07 years (2001-2007) $122,718,750 $17,531,250 $213,795.73 [33]
    25 Tim Duncan San Antonio Spurs Basketball 07 years (2003-2010) $122,007,704 $17,429,672 $212,556.98 [34]
    26 Mike Hampton Colorado Rockies* Baseball 08 years (2001-2008) $121,000,000 $15,125,000 $93,364.20 [35]
    27 (tie) Shaquille O’Neal Los Angeles Lakers* Basketball 07 years (1996-2003) $120,000,000 $17,142,857 $209,059.23 [36]
    27 (tie) Jason Giambi New York Yankees* Baseball 07 years (2002-2008) $120,000,000 $17,142,857 $105,820.10 [37]
    28 (tie) Matt Holliday St. Louis Cardinals Baseball 07 years (2010-2016) $120,000,000 $17,142,857 $105,820.10 [38]
    28 (tie) Cliff Lee Philadelphia Phillies Baseball 05 years (2011-2016) $120,000,000 $24,000,000 $148,148.15 [39]
    28 (tie) Larry Fitzgerald Arizona Cardinals American Football 08 years (2011-2018) $120,000,000 $15,000,000 $937,500.00 [40]
    33 Carson Palmer Cincinnati Bengals* American football 09 years (2006-2014) $119,750,000‡ $13,305,555 $831,597.19 [41]
    34 Carlos Beltrán New York Mets* Baseball 07 years (2005-2011) $119,000,000 $17,000,000 $104,938.27 [42]
    35 Ken Griffey, Jr. Cincinnati Reds* Baseball 09 years (2000-2008) $116,500,000 $12,944,444 $79,903.98 [43]
    46 Donovan McNabb Philadelphia Eagles* American football 12 years (2002-2013) $115,000,000‡ $9,583,333 $598,958.31 [44]
    47 Gilbert Arenas Washington Wizards* Basketball 06 Years (2008-2013) $111,000,000 $18,500,000 $225,609.76 [45]
    48 LeBron James Miami Heat Basketball 06 years (2010-2016) $109,837,500 $18,306,250 $223,246.95 [46]
    49 Kevin BrownR Los Angeles Dodgers* Baseball 07 years (1999-2005) $105,000,000 $15,000,000 $92,592.59 [47]
    50 Jason Kidd New Jersey Nets* Basketball 06 years (2003-2009) $103,572,000 $17,262,000 $210,512.20 [48]
    51 Ben Roethlisberger Pittsburgh Steelers American Football 08 years (2008-2015) $102,000,000‡ $12,750,000 $796,875.00 [49]
    52 (tie) Albert Pujols St. Louis Cardinals Baseball 07 years (2004-2010) $100,000,000 $14,285,714 $88,183.42 [50]
    52 (tie) Carlos Lee Houston Astros Baseball 06 years (2007-2012) $100,000,000 $16,666,666 $102,880.65 [51]
    52 (tie) Shaquille O’Neal Miami Heat* Basketball 05 years (2005-2010) $100,000,000 $20,000,000 $243,902.44 [52]
    53 (tie) Brett Favre4 Green Bay Packers* American Football 10 years (2001-2010) $100,000,000 $10,000,000 $625,000.00 [53]
    54 (tie) Albert Haynesworth Washington Redskins* American Football 07 years (2009-2016) $100,000,000‡ $14,285,714 $892,857.13 [54]
    55 (tie) Ilya Kovalchuk New Jersey Devils Ice Hockey 15 years (2010-2025) $100,000,000 $6,666,667 $81,300.81 [55]
    56 (tie) Michael Vick Philadelphia Eagles American Football 06 years (2011-2016) $100,000,000‡ $16,666,667 $1,041,667.00 [56]

  47. The French Top-14 has a salary cap of some 8 million Euros per club. That is well in excess of any other competition in the world.

  48. Sport plays an important role in French society and the country has a strong sporting history. The most-watched sports in France are football and rugby union.

    1 Football
    2 Motorsport
    3 Handball
    4 Basketball
    5 Rugby union

  49. Reply to Duiwel @ 12:00 am:

    Salary caps are rife with ‘back-handers’ and ‘under-the-table’ agreements… much like the amateur rugby game in RSA with players being ‘gifted’ houses, jobs, cars, annuities…

    There is no way some team can maintain that $8mill with a few Frans Steyns (@750k Euro per season) a few of their top test players and then the rest.

    It’s the same as AFL and NRL here in Aus… they’re always getting found out despite the extreme fiscal forensic lengths gone to to hide it…

  50. “Coupled to which most New Zealanders as simply do not have the financial wherewithal to purchase a team franchise operating license”

    Well if Lowy and co can buy the Rebels in Aus… then a guy like Graeme Hart wouldn’t bat an eyelid in NZ…he has more money than Johan Rupert…

  51. Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 2:35 am: Well done Bryce, at last some sanity prevails in this thread which has had so many inaccuracies. It seems that some have been so blinded by their hatred of everything kiwi that they can’t get their facts straight. One simple fact is that New Zealand’s per capita GDP of $29915 puts it at 28 in the World Bank’s 2010 list of national prosperity whereas the RSA sadly languishes with $10 486 at #77. So David your concerns about NZ and the NZRFU are misplaced – people who live in glasshouses etc…and I think the NZRFU finances are probably on a better footing than SARFU’s too.

    The potential sale of NZ S15 licences by the NZRFU has more to do with thinking outside the box than it has to do with bankruptcy caused by hosting RWC 2011 or any other absurd ideas.

  52. Reply to out wide @ 6:56 am:

    IMO that’s exactly it… blind-freddy can see no SANZAR unions can still simply rely on Foxsports Super money handouts and still retain the best staff and players not too mention evolve their structures from grass-roots and up…

    This is the next step in increasing the capital base and professionalism…

    The work this model at the Rebels has done across Victorian Rugby in just one year has been astounding…

  53. New Zealand itself does not have the financial wherewithal to compete with South Africa on a pure output level financially.

    That is a joke.

    Mean income differential is such a misleading thing to use to determine nation’s riches. It simply averages out…

    By that token a country like Namibia has more cash per person than South Africa…

    Truth is places like Brazil have a low mean income but is in the top 10 of GDP.

    New Zealand is a country with 4 million people who are primarily city dwellers with virtually no natural resources.

    To compare it financially with a nation of 50 million with the most uranium, most manganese, most vanadium, most platinum and the fourth most gold on the basis of your people earn more than ours is misleading.



    WASPs are quickly losing their position in the richest people category.

    Main reason is your Charra friends and all… it’s easy to become a multi billionaire if you live in a country that intentionally excludes its possible external investors and just concentrates on its internal market which is larger than some continents!

    India has a very low mean income per person but would you say New Zealand is richer than India because of that?

  54. And of course I am bitter at the Kiwis!

    They took the hosting of this World Cup like it was an exalted right, then whinged because they didn’t have enough money to build the stadiums to host it properly, and worried they’d make a loss.

    Then hosted probably the most boring, poorly organized, poorly refereed and played World Cup tournament in history bar nothing far away from the largest watching audiences at times when nobody could watch…

    Am I bitter because they won it?


    Because they hosted it.

    The corruption in the way they “won” it is a side issue but one I predicted literally years before the tournament.

  55. Reply to DavidS @ 8:08 am:

    You suggested/inferred there were not many individuals nor coys with the wealth in NZ to buy a stake in their Super Rugby sides… that’s just not correct… perceived mineral wealth (particularly in RSA), GDP’s etc etc have nothing to do with it…

  56. Reply to DavidS @ 8:08 am: David you argue very passionately and often inaccurately about some things that bug you – like your dislike of the current RWC holders but you do tend to ignore facts that don’t suit your arguement. Not sure what your forte in life is but it is not economics if you cannot see that GDP per capita is a measure of a nations prosperity. And by the way Namibia is 10 behind the RSA on the World Banks 2010 GDP/capita list.

  57. Howzit! You guys follow the HC at all?
    This weekend some good games coming up for example on Friday Quins take on Toulouse – both unbeaten so far.

    We are in our winter break and FINALLY it started snowing today! 6 weeks of sunshine (bad for business) was the dryest start to winter in the history of weather stats!

  58. OomD,ja the old naaidoo naaiwho’s
    are conniving little fuckers
    to say the least.
    That mongul ,texan-dumb slovacs
    in russia
    are even worse.
    Sell their own mothers
    after prostituting them of course.
    Then again western europe with its arm sales
    are no diffirent.
    Can’t stand the chinks,nips or slopes either.

    I agree that NZ got mothered to host the world cup
    and fluffed it.

    The viewing times was stupid.

    A lot of money lost needlessly.

    The reffing or lack of it
    was hardly their fault
    however i believe it was a decision that
    was taken by the irb to consciously favour
    New Zealand.

    Lets hope someone can spank them before they get to 17.
    I can’t stand their arrogance.
    However same was said about us and the english.
    Suzie didn’t help either.
    I have a few mates there,two saffas
    who love it.
    Well governed,relatively conservative,good inroads on eco,
    well received abroad.
    And the kiwi girls i spent time with
    were well worth the ride.

  59. I hear you Duiwel…

    When I was there all the hot ones were expats from here…

    Hottest one wore a teeshirt from her Dad that said

    “WP Currie Beker Kampioene 1982 – 1986” or some such..

    From Paarl of all places…

    I don’t mean Kiwis are a bad lot… just that hosting this RWC was a bridge too far for them and it harmed the sport as an international product.

    Weather is lekker (north island is), people are friendly, landscape is nice, nice food, nice stable economy …

  60. Met a paarl girl at aliwal noord
    on pass.
    She loved that maroon beret.
    Still remember her with nothing on except
    my beret and jumpers.
    Good thing i was fit.

  61. Hallo Boer.

    Het ‘n kak jaar beleef, my vrou lewendig verloor (ongelukkig, ek bedoel lewendig ) deur die ore gewerk finansieel, ens….ens….ens….

    Sal die laaste jaar wat die Mayas ons gee vir ‘n ses slaan!

  62. Cosa,
    nou die dag so vyf en n half kilo
    se bogie uitgetrk
    mooi vissie,
    het vir oomD die snép gestuur
    met n snép van my bokie
    maar hy wil fokkol weet van oppie site sit nie.
    weet mos,
    TR :whatever: NSV :whatever: :whatever: LER

  63. Mbalula: SA sport set for action

    SASCOC in Mbalula U-turn Sascoc points finger at Mbalula Mbalula to race in Cycle Tour Cape Town – Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula wants to spend next year putting the government’s ambitious sport plan into practice.

    “Without a plan you can never achieve anything.”
    Sounds like just another plan to enrich a lot
    of struggle comrades through corruption.
    Sorry, but you are just way out of your league.
    Rather try planning a piss up in a brewery.

  64. Mob stones Zim man to death
    Four people have been arrested in connection with the stoning to death of a Zimbabwean man in Polokwane, police say.
    Savages forever.

  65. Die twee ou skool pelle, Piet en Koos, loop mekaar raak na twintig jaar.
    “Haai, ou Piet, jy lyk goed man. Wat het jy met jou lewe gedoen na skool?” vra Koos.
    “Nee,” sê Piet, “ek het Tale gaan swot op Tukkies en het my Honneurs behaal. Daar het ek toe ook my vrou ontmoet. Sy skryf gedigte en prosa en het ‘n Meestersgraad in Letterkunde. My seun is ‘n konsertpianis in Amerika vir die Amerikaanse Philharmoniese orkes en my dogter is die hoofballerina in London se balletgeselskap…. Julle moet een aand oorkom dan hou ons ‘n kultuur-aand. En wat het jy met jou lewe gedoen, Koos?”
    “Nee,” sê Koos, “ek was mos al op skool al ‘n bietjie bakleierig en het toe na skool maar ‘n bokser geword. Daar het ek ook my vrou ontmoet, die dogter van ‘n promotor, en in daai tyd kon vrouens mos nie boks nie toe begin sy met karate en sy het haar black belt gekry voor ons eerste kind. Ons seun het onlangs sy nasionale kleure gekry in stoei en my dogter verteenwoordig ons land in Judo…. Julle moet een aand oorkom dan moer ons julle.”

  66. I had an interesting experience recently involving an “older” woman I met at a bar. She looked pretty darn HOT for 57. She was drinking quite a bit, and while we were chatting, she came right out and asked me if I’d ever had a “sportsman’s double:” A mother and daughter threesome! I said ‘no’, but she might be able to talk me into it. So she slams back one last drink, wipes her mouth, and looking directly into my eyes, she tells me, “Tonight’s your lucky night.” So we go back to her place, she clicks on the hall light right as we enter, and she shouts upstairs….”Mom! You still awake?”

  67. A ventriloquist visiting New Zealand walks into a small village and sees a local sitting on his porch patting his dog. He figures he’ll have a little fun, so he says to the Kiwi: “Can I talk to your dog?
    Kiwi: “The dog doesn’t talk, you stupid git.”
    Ventriloquist: “Hello dog, how’s it going mate?”
    Dog: “Doin’ all right.”
    Kiwi: (look of extreme shock)
    Ventriloquist: “Is this villager your owner?” (pointing at the villager)
    Dog: “Yep”
    Ventriloquist: “How does he treat you?”
    Dog: “Real good. He walks me twice a day, feeds me great food And takes me to the lake once a week to play.”
    Kiwi: (look of utter disbelief)
    Ventriloquist: “Mind if I talk to your horse?”
    Kiwi: “Uh, the horse doesn’t talk either….I think.”
    Ventriloquist: “Hey horse, how’s it going?”
    Horse: “Cool”
    Kiwi: (absolutely dumbfounded)
    Ventriloquist: “Is this your owner?” (pointing at the villager)
    Horse: “Yep”
    Ventriloquist: “How does he treat you?”
    Horse: “Pretty good, thanks for asking. He rides me regularly, brushes me down often and keeps me in the barn to protect me from the elements.”
    Kiwi: (total look of amazement)
    Ventriloquist: “Mind if I talk to your sheep?”
    Kiwi: (in a panic) “The sheep’s a f***ing liar!!!”

  68. Hey Sipho! I have a cow for you for just R500!”
    “E yoh, Bongani! I’ll take it – you can bring it to me tomorrow!”
    The next day: “Sorry Sipho, but the cow died last night.”
    “Hauw.. So, ok then. Just give me my money back.”
    “Sorry Sipho, I did already spent that money..”
    “Eish! So, ok then. Just bring me the dead cow.” So, Bongani brought the dead cow to Sipho the next morning. A few weeks later, Bongani bumped into Sipho and asked him what he did with the dead cow: “You won’t believe, Bongani! I made a raffle for the cow, and I sold 251 tickets for R5 each! I made a profit of R850! But, I didn’t tell anyone the cow was dead.”
    “Yoh! And the people they didn’t complain?”
    “Eish! Only the guy which won! So, I gave him back his R5 and he was happy!” Sipho is now in parliament.

  69. Oom Kallie en Tant Anna ry in New York toe ‘n taxi langs hulle stop. Die taxidriver se toe vir hulle: “Good morning!” Tant Anna vra toe vir Oom Kallie: “Pappa, wat sê hy?” Toe antwoord Oom Kallie: “Ag, hy sê sommer hallo.” En hulle ignoreer die taxidriver heeltemal. Toe vra die taxidriver: “Hey, where you from?” Tant Anna vra toe: “Pappa, wat se die man?” Oom Kallie antwoord: “Ag, hy vra sommer waarvandaan ons kom.” En hulle antwoord “South Africa”. Die taxidriver sê toe: “Hey, I’ve been to South Africa and I had the worst sex there ever!” Tant Anna vra toe weer: “Pappa, wat se hy?” Oom Kallie: “Hy sê hy ken jou!

  70. Edward Longshanks het met 4 000 troepe Suid-Afrika toe gekom om die Boere op te f… By die slagveld gekom sien hy doer in die verte op ‘n koppie staan ‘n figuur met blonde hare, kortbroek aan met ‘n kam in sy kous. “Rooinek!” skree die Boer op die koppie. “Kom hier jou Engelse moer! I will gives you one helluva gatskop!” Edward draai om na sy bevelvoerder en sê: “Take 20 men and deal with that Boer upstart!” Die bevelvoerder stuur 20 man om die Boer te gaan soek. Tien minute later staan die Boer weer op die koppie. “You! English donner! Stuur the rest of your Rooinekke. I will f.. them almal op!” Edward raak nou ietwat geïrriteerd en sê vir die bevelvoerder: “Take 100 men and kill that little guttersnipe!” Die bevelvoerder stuur 100 man oor die koppie. ‘n Rukkie later staan die Boer so waar as wragtig weer op die randjie en skree: “Hey, you …t! Jou ma se .! I is just warming up! Come moer me dik!” Toe verloor Edward kop en stuur 400 troepe om die Boer dood te maak. Tien minute later staan die Boer maar weer daar. Sy klere is geskeur en sy hare staan wild. Dis net snot, bloed en Castle. Weer skree hy: “Is dat de best ye can do? You bloody vrot pommies! Come on, come and have a go julle souties! Kom klap me stukkend!” Rooi in die gesig sê Edward vir die bevelvoerder: Take the rest of the men and don’t come back untill you have killed him!” Vyf minute later kom een van die troepe al gillende en vol bloed oor die randjie gestorm: “Your majesty!” skree hy, “It’s a trap! There’s two of them!”

  71. Free State farm hand, radios to his boss, the Farm manager.
    “Boss, I gotta big problem here. I hit a pig with the bakkie. The Pig’s’ ok but he’s stuck in the bull bar at the front of the bakkie and it’s wriggling & squealing so much I can’t get him out”.
    The manager says “OK there’s a 30.06 rifle behind the seat, take it out and shoot the pig in the head then you’ll be able to remove him”.
    Five minutes later the farm hand calls back. “I did as you said boss. Took the 30.06 and shot the pig in his head and removed him from the Bull-bar. No problem there, but I still can’t go on.”
    “Now what’s the problem?” raged the manager…

    “Well Boss, it’s his motor bike. The flashing blue light is stuck under the right front wheel arch……………You still there boss?”

    26 Januarie

  72. In summary, the police arrested Patrick Lawrence, 22 year old white male resident of Dacula, GA, in a pumpkin patch 11:38 p.m. on Friday. Lawrence will be charged with lewd and lascivious behaviour, public indecency, and public intoxication at the Gwinnett County courthouse on Monday.

    The suspect explained that as he was passing a pumpkin patch he decided to stop. “You know, a pumpkin is soft and squishy inside, and there was no one around for miles. At least I thought there wasn’t.” he stated in a phone interview.

    Lawrence went on to say that he pulled over to the side of the road, picked out a pumpkin that he felt was appropriate to his purpose, cut a hole in it, and proceeded to satisfy his alleged “need.”

    “Guess I was really into it, you know?” he commented with evident embarrassment. In the process, Lawrence apparently failed to notice a Gwinnett County police car approaching and was unaware of his audience until Officer Brenda Taylor approached him.

    “That was an unusual situation, that’s for sure,” said Officer Taylor. ” I walked up to Lawrence and he was just…… pumping away at this pumpkin.”

    Taylor went on to describe what happened when she approached Lawrence. “I just went up and said, ‘Excuse me sir, but do you realize that you’re having sex with a pumpkin?” He froze and was clearly very surprised that I was there, and then looked me straight in the face and said,

    “A pumpkin? F*ck me, is it midnight already?”

  73. ‘n Verkoopsman wat van deur tot deur loop klop aan die soveelste deur. ‘n Seuntjie, so ag jaar oud, maak die deur oop. Hy het sykouse aan met bypassende kousophouers. In sy een hand is ‘n Martini en in die ander ‘n vet sigaar.
    “Is jou mammie tuis boeta?” vra die verkoopsman.
    Die seuntjie kyk stip na hom vir twee sekondes en antwoord stadig: “Lyk dit so?”

  74. The patient says, “Give me the bad news first!”
    Doctor replies, “You’ve got AIDS.”
    “Oh, no! What could be worse than that?” asks the patient.
    “You’ve also got Alzheimer’s Disease.”
    Looking relieved the patient says, “Oh…Well, that’s not so bad. At least I don’t have AIDS.”

  75. A farmer was worried that none of his pigs were getting pregnant. He called a vet and asked what he should do if he wanted more pigs. The vet told him he should try artificial insemination. The farmer, not wanting to appear stupid, answered okay and hung up the phone. Unclear on what the vet meant by artificial insemination, the farmer decided it must mean he had to impregnate the pigs himself, so he loaded all the pigs in his pickup and drove down to the woods and shagged them all. The next day he called the vet again, and asked how would he know if the pigs were pregnant. The vet told him they would be lying down rolling in the mud, but when he looked out the window not even one was lying down. So, he loaded them up in his pickup again and drove them to the woods and shagged them all again. To his dismay they were all standing the next morning. So, again he loads the pigs in his truck drives them to the woods and shags them for the third time. By the next morning the farmer is beat, so he asks his wife to hop out of bed and look out the window to see what the pigs are doing. She says “hmmm – that’s weird, they are all in the truck and one of them is blowing the horn

  76. New word:
    Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy)
    – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

  77. Reply to DavidS @ 12:39 pm:

    Clutch-plates kept We Are Sexual Perverts well alive into the early 90’s… in my early London days I had a part-time job at a well known live music venue… they had a one-off reform gig and played screens of porn and wanted to saw a pig carcass in half on stage… strange dudes…

    Reply to Boertjie @ 9:39 pm:

    Funny cause it’s true… why don’t you add it here (where Snorism is listed…