The Southern Kings’ place in the Vodacom Super Rugby competition in 2013 was reaffirmed at a Special Council Meeting of the South African Rugby Union (SARU) in Cape Town on Friday.
Proposals on mechanisms to identity the four other South African entrants will be considered at a SARU Special General Meeting on March 30.
“The decision to include the Southern Kings in the 2013 Vodacom Super Rugby tournament was unanimously confirmed by the members,” said Jurie Roux, CEO of SARU on Friday.
“We will now look at the options to identify the other entrants to the competition, which will include further discussions with our SANZAR partners on the possibility of including a sixth South African team in the competition.
“The Unions will also be making their own recommendations and the outcome of those discussions and other proposals will be tabled for the Executive Council and ultimately a General Meeting to consider.”
January 27th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
A new tender process including all the franchises?
Maybe a full Cape side that incorporates the Stormers and KIngs?
January 27th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Southern Kings
Western Stormers
Eastern Sharks
Central Cheetahs
Nothern Bullions
Problem solved. Every area represented.
January 27th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Reply to Kat @ 3:05 pm:
AgrEE FuLLy Kat!
Can even have diFFerent Coaches- SARU aPPointed for the 5 “REGIONAL” teams- working closely with CoachMeyer, with aLL the BigDog players contracted with SARU.
Provinces- ea FreeState ChEEtahs, Griquas & GriFFons then have their own coaches- contracted + contracted players – doing the VC and domestiCCtiFF!
Lot of iSSues/i$$ues wiLl be solved that way.
Just the ego’s of the BlazerBrigade…..
January 27th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Reply to Oranje Orakel @ 3:19 pm:
Eish, maar you have vivid dreams
January 27th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Reply to Oranje Orakel @ 3:19 pm:
….and the small matter of alienating just about all the fans in Gauteng.
Causing some serious $$$ consequences.
Regional teams and SARU appointed coaches did not work out so well the last time they tried it either.
January 27th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
I would like to see 6 regional teams fight for the 5 spots in the S15.
promotion/relegation: where the last team in the S15 SA conference drops out to give another region a go. this way we see fresh blood and it will liven up the local wooden spoon games
January 27th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
The Bulls are already RED and the Lions in a tight fin position and Gauteng like one big city so why not?
Good player management can ensure that all the top player play and are not burned out. Training in Centurion. Play in both stadions.
January 27th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Reply to Timeo @ 4:33 pm:
It is because it was never regional teams – it was franchises run by big unions.
January 27th, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 5:06 pm:
One of these teams will be out next year.
How?
They will only know in March (apparently).
This is after the Super15 started.
SA Rugby is in a spot of bother I reckon. They cannot go tell a team they are out less than a year before the next comp starts, these franchises have long time sponsors and contracts already in place – how will they deal with that?
SA Rugby does not have the money to compensate any franchise in this regard.
In fact, they are in shit as far as I am concerned.
I mean this is not even a promotion/relegation scenario from what I read – Kings are ASSURED participation and the only way SA Rugby can keep everyone happy is to convince SANZAR to include another team (fat chance).
January 27th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Reply to Morné @ 6:25 pm:
Fat chance indeed.
So a team to weak to play CC
is elevated to Super15.
At whose expense?
HKGK
January 27th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 7:40 pm:
Oom we have heard this (guaranteed) shit since 2006 for this team (Spears/Kings). Nothing has changed since 2006 – the arguments are still the same for and against their participation.
It has been 6 years, and we have not moved forward an inch.
January 27th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Reply to Morné @ 8:02 pm:
The newsprint in front of me says Kings is
the only team with guaranteed participation
in the S15 of 2013.
The other four teams will be decided on
30 March.
HKGK
January 27th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
UPDATES
Stormers beat Lions 28-6 at Newlands.
The Beast broke his ankle, out for 3 months.
January 28th, 2012 at 4:05 am
Cheetahs are going to have to have a great season to avoid turning into the Cats again or being relegated… NZAR will NEVER allow a 6th weak RSA team…
January 28th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 11:06 pm:
Who is Beast playing for?
January 28th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Unite WC and EC
Much easier
January 28th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Sorry the two options I see is
United Cape or United Gauteng.
But United Gauteng would be disastrous for both sides as neither Bulls nor Lions supporters will support them…
January 28th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 4:27 pm:
Yes, 700km vs. 50km.
Much easier…
January 28th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Reply to Morné @ 7:02 pm:
Difference is far bigger than 30 km (it’s 30 km actually)
Remember that initially SEC was part of the Sharks.
Nothing has stopped the Bulls from trekking about to Pietersburg and the Cheetahs from playing in KImberley.
Similar deal.
Play some games in PE and presto game done.
January 28th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 4:27 pm:
Shocks.
January 28th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 9:10 pm:
EP (PE) was part of the Sharks.
SWD (George) was part of the Stormers.
The main reason the CATS franchise failed according to the Cheetahs was the travelling from Bloem to JHB all the time, living out of hotels and every home game feeling like an away game.
Bloem to JHB is about 400km – CPT to PE (headquarters of the Kings) is over 700km.
PS: Bloem to Kimberley: 160km – PTA to Pietersburg: 260km (when did the Bulls trek up to go play there in SupeRugby?)
Logistically, it is simply not an option.
January 29th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Reply to Morné @ 10:04 pm:
How many player will SEC contribute to the Stormers or Sharks Morne… be honest…
Would it not be better for the Sharks and Stormers to just play games in EL or PE?
January 29th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 12:58 pm:
The SEC, socially, culturally and obviously geographically is as far removed from CPT and Durbs as Bloem is from JHB. It cannot work.
Either we get a go-ahead for 6 franchises with SANZAR, or one franchise will lose out – and mind you, I am not against promotion/relegation play-off’s but I don’t know how they will ever be able to get that done given the rugby calendar.
Perhaps automatic promo/relegation? I don’t know, it would be unfair to institute that now.
January 29th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Strangely enough the Cats franchise failed not in 2000 and 2001 when they had a decent international coach to bond a unit rather than the 2002 / 2003 petty infighting which saw Tim Lane and then Frans Ludeke undermined by Rassie Erasmus and Naka Drotske and some senior Cheetahs players who intentionally sabotaged the team dynamic. Understandably in a certain sense given that Andy “Money Burner” Turner seemed to have regarded the Cats as his personal little fiefdom without consideration for the needs of creating a united central franchise and Harold Verster is an equally unastute politician more given to expressing backroom resentment than actually solving problems.
I must agree the trouble started in 2003 when the effectively Lions selectors overlooked Kennedy Tsimba and Hanyane Shimange (who were at the top of their game) and included a rather hated Werner Swanepoel over the Lions scrummy of the time…
But to call the Cats a failure based on that travel bug when in truth it was based on political infighting is nonsensical.
The fact that Laurie Mains did manage to pull them together for two of their seasons should speak volumes about their potential.
The travel story is also kak. The New Zealand franchise players are pooled from their different provincial sides and do not seem any worse for wear… in fact aside from the Highlanders they are always competitive.
No, the Cats was sabotaged because the Lions management did not recognize that it was a partnership and the Free State expressed their dissatisfaction by passive aggressive resistance and fuming dikbekkedly in the background…
If travel for players was an issue then no franchise in Aus or New Zealand could ever succeed.
January 29th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
I also think the whole “cradle of black rugby” thing is overplayed.
If it produces the individuals let them rather perform for everyone’s benefit at the Bulls, Cheetahs, Lions, Sharks etc than to make them stay in the most backwards and corrupt province on the coast.
The promotion relegation thing will be a supporter nightmare and a player agent nightmare…
The whole SARU franchise idea was a crapshoot precisely because people identified the Bulls with the Bulls and Sharks with the Sharks.
Perhaps the best way is to take the franchises and totally disassociate them from the provincial franchises and pool the players so they’re SARU contracted… but will fans support a Gauteng Giants playing out of FNB Stadium? Or say KZN Mambas playing out of Moses Mabidha?
January 29th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Maak nie saak hoe jy daarna kyk
nie, dit bly ‘n fokkop.
Hoeveel miljoene het Saru al
gestort om die skuld in die
OP en Grens uit te sorteer?
January 30th, 2012 at 11:58 am
Hoessit, Tjops.
How’z about this : keep the 5 + 1 franchises as they are now and send whichever is relegated to play in a Euro comp. SANZAR can’t complain ’cause they don’t have space for another and the fantasy/reality of playing in a NH comp can be tested.
It probably won’t be very easy to enter a team in the NH, but it might at least be looked into.
The alternatives so far 1) merging some regions and that’s infinitely complicated 2) have the relegated team in limbo playing warm-ups, international invitationals or something of the sort. Both these can be detrimental to a union, no games = no feet = no money so I can’t see it working really.
January 30th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Iemand iewers gaan moet saamsmelt om plek te maak. Dit gaan baie moeilik wees en erge probleme meebring dis verseker. Soos ek dit sien is die saamsmelt oplossing met die minste probleme diĂ© van Bulle en Leeus. Geen speler wil die hele Super reeks op toer wees nie. Bul en Leeus spelers sal tuis in hul eie huise kan bly … ‘n groot plus. Vir spelers met gesinne is dit ‘n groot issue. Waar daar ‘n wil is is daar ‘n weg. Die wil kan aangehelp word met ‘n aanmoedingspakket wat dit aanloklik sal maak vir beide partye wat saamsmelt. Die twee spanne speel dan in die CB op hul eie. Die CB het dan ook meer waarde (nie net ‘n goedkoper kopie van die S15 nie).
January 30th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Reply to namboer @ 11:58 am:
No team (which will be one of the cellar-dwellers anyway) can afford to spend 4 months with a 35 man squad in the NH… and why would the NH want a relegated team in their competition anyway?
This 2013 agreement is going to be a further nail in the coffin for the Lions… what sponsor nor ‘knight in shining armour’ is going to want to commit to a team that could be relegated…
January 30th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Reply to Kat @ 1:31 pm:
Miskien val die Leeus hiervoor – klink
my hulle is in diep genoeg skuld vir
enige vorm van ‘n reddingsboei.
Storie uit die OP is dat hulle dadelik
begin onderhandel met ‘n borg, en dat
min van die huidige spelers die Kings
span sal haal.
Nog ‘n reddingsboei vir die journeymen
wat sukkel om plek te kry.
Wil jy vir die Luiperds of Griffons
speel, of vir ‘n span in die S15?
January 30th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 1:33 pm: Why not? You wouldn’t need all 35 players on hand 24/7, I believe. They would need a ‘home’ venue on Euro soil obviously and some income can be generated with that. Maybe even play a game or two in SA, Saracens was going to do it anyway. A wider variety of sponsors can be potentially available. And with Super Rugby being labled the toughest in the world, I don’t think even the lower log teams will that far off the NH pace.
Obviously it won’t be easy, but is it that much more difficult than merging?
February 1st, 2012 at 3:40 am
Reply to Morné @ 6:21 pm:
You like to promote the concept of going fully professional. Imagine the scenario where SARU sells off 5 SR franchises with full control over team/brand & players to 5 investors.
The 5 new owners use a draft system to choose the locations of their teams.
Most definitely the first three draft choices will be for Cape Town, Durban and Gauteng.
The 4th owner, faced with a choice between Bloem. PE or a 2nd location in Gauteng, will also choose Gauteng. Any rational businessman who wants to maximize the value of his investment will do that.
Which means it will always be Bloem OR PE and never Bloem AND PE. That is how it is today and much closer to professionalism than any regional team concept. “Regional” is a marketing term only ie. Teams market themselves to fans from a certain region. Control is concentrated, whether ownership is private or union does not change that.
What if only one team in Gauteng is specified?
Pretoria and Johannesburg are two distinct rugby markets with very different cultures and hinterlands, and Midrand does not have a stadium. Thus the amount of fans and money lost because of only one Gauteng team will be far greater than that gained from a team in PE or Bloem.
February 1st, 2012 at 5:18 am
Reply to namboer @ 2:24 pm:
Will 120 plus wives, sons and daughters move to the NH as well or are the husbands expect to work 5 months on 7 off (which doesn’t even happen in the hugely paying mining industry over here?
February 1st, 2012 at 5:25 am
NZAR take starts to come through (I find the current silence from J’ON and co quite interesting…)
“South Africa wants Super Rugby expanded to 16 teams and will lobby SANZAR partners New Zealand and Australia to make the change.
While they believe the expansion would benefit everyone, it is clearly designed to alleviate political considerations in their own back yard.
It seems the South African proposal is based around a simple round-robin format where all teams play each other, meaning 15 games for each side.
They are also suggesting a return to a four-team finals series to reduce the need to expand the length of the season.
But that is unlikely to meet with much support from their Australasian partners after the current move to six teams finals to keep more teams involved at the business end.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/south-africa-want-16-teams-in-super-rugby-20120201-1qs80.html#ixzz1l64ufxfE
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/south-africa-want-16-teams-in-super-rugby-20120201-1qs80.html#ixzz1l64S8AFQ