The Southern Kings are far from assured of Super Rugby participation in 2013.
As this Kings saga continues to unfold I am rather surprised by all the media reports stating that the Kings are currently the only franchise guaranteed of a spot in next year’s competition, with one of the remaining 5 having to make way for them.
It is not that I don’t understand these reports, I just cannot believe that people are so gullible!
Not soon after we heard that the general council voted unanimously for the Kings inclusion, a letter from the current five franchises surfaced in the media soon afterwards stating that; “None of the existing franchises shall be prejudiced by such inclusion [of the Kings] in any way whatsoever; none of the existing franchises shall be eliminated from the tournament in 2013 or at any stage thereafter as a result of the inclusion of the Kings.”
This prompted SA Rugby to hastily try and arrange a meeting with their SANZAR partners (New Zealand and Australia) to propose a change in the current format to include a 6th South African franchise – a suggestion shot down numerous times by NZAR stating there can be no change in the current, 15-team conference format until 2015 when the broadcast deal comes to an end.
The meeting (scheduled for some time in March) of course also never took place, as the delegation selected to present the case felt they did not have enough information to present a good case.
It has now been reported that SA Rugby has advised the current 5 franchises, as-well as the Kings, that a meeting will take place between all the parties to try and sort this mess out later this month. Exactly what the outcome of this meeting will be is anyone’s guess as there was no agenda attached to the email by SA Rugby sent to the unions.
Readers of this site might understand why all of this has a very familiar look and feel to it…
When we started out here at RuggaWorld one of the hottest topics was that of the Southern Spears, the Kings you know now in all but name. Their CEO at the time, Tony McKeever, was well known to many on this site and he even posted his own comments, thoughts and news here. And it is what unfolded in 2005 through to 2006 (and many years following) that has me thinking SA Rugby (who still has the same President in place since the 2005 fiasco) will again somehow find a way to screw the Kings over.
The believe currently in the Kings ‘guaranteed’ participation in 2013 is based on the fact that the general council voted unanimously in favour of this in January this year. To me personally, that means about as much as what my horoscope tells me every morning in the paper… Let me explain.
In June of 2005 SA Rugby not only voted unanimously for the Spears entrenchment in the Currie Cup Premier division of 2006, but also guaranteed Super Rugby participation in 2007 and 2008 in addition to financially assist them up to then (Super Rugby inclusion) and find them sponsors.
This went further where this decision was ratified in December of 2005 culminating in the Spears actually signing a franchise participation agreement in 2006! But wait, there is more (as they would say on Verimark)! This agreement itself was found valid in a court of law in June 2006 when a judge ruled that the agreement was binding and that SA Rugby should make good on their promises.
Of course what followed was some of the best back-hand dealings to dissolve the Spears but that is another story. The point here is; a silly vote recorded in the minutes of a SARU general council meaning which for some reason have most believing the Kings are ‘guaranteed’ participation in 2013 means absolutely nothing in my view.
As in 2006, none of the current 5 franchises will back down and give up millions of Rands of income from a share of the broadcasting deal not to mention the sponsorship money they get from just playing in the competition. If you don’t believe me, read the letter they sent to SA Rugby following the meeting in January to include the Kings.
The problem SA Rugby sits with is the criteria they will use in order to eliminate any of the current 5 teams. More than half-way through the season a decision that the ‘lowest’ ranking franchise is to get the boot will see a ton of litigation thrown in the direction of SA Rugby. A decision to play a promotion/relegation match will not fly with the Kings who with their current player resources cannot make it past the quarter finals of the Vodacom Cup.
Another option could be to institute a condition to have all franchises comply with a minimum financial reserve in order to qualify for a franchise license (which are up for grabs at the end of this year actually) but that will also be a hard sell given the Kings themselves might not be much better off financially than the Lions.
You see boys and girls, when it comes down to it I see the same gutless approach by SA Rugby now which I did in 2006. They are quite simply incapable of making tough decisions and would rather try and play a situation out than take responsibility for it. And they are solely responsible for this mess using the Kings or Eastern Cape region as their banner whenever they try and win favour with government or government backing for something (like a Rugby World Cup bid).
I feel for the Kings, I really do. SA Rugby owes them this – but like the Spears in 2006, they will too not see the light of Super Rugby, at least not in 2013. At least they were Kings for a day in January…
elcamino
ROOILEEU
Tina
logan
Deon
Thomas_Bulls
garyj1-Bulls
Amethyst
Aldo
Methos The French Stormer
KingPaul
JT_BOKBEFOK!
trevormayhew
RUGGA_MIND
Pokkel
Quinn25
namboer
Marcel
Jacques(Bunny)Somtimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
moose
Vernonimous
Pom in Joburg
Watte
niekie
Dante
Panther
Vetgesmeerde Blits
bryce_in_oz
Kozac
Blokkies
Number12_Lions
Brutus2
Lehe6
Estian Nortier
DavidS
johanleroux13
Morné
Tafelberg
pietstreak
Ollie
Koos
May 8th, 2012 at 10:47 am
The Kings could also be blamed for this.
Considering that the talks and promises has been going on for quite some time, it should have been up to them to put their point across on the rugby pithces of SA.
Since this whole debacle started it is clear the Kings have achieved nothing as far as developing the rich talents that must surely lurk around in their region.
They should have been able to make a case for their inclusion on performances alone which has not happened at all.
The reality is if they do get to join the super rugby tournamnet next year they will be on a hiding to nothing as they haven’t developed talent.
If they go the route of recruiting players from ourside the region to be remotely competitive they will defeat the whole object of why they are supposed to be given an opportunity.
I do not only blame SARu, but much of the balme must go the the plonkers running the Kings.
May 8th, 2012 at 11:08 am
If the Kings play in next year’s comp it will damage their already fragile brand. How many supporters have the Lions lost over the years over their poor showing? The Kings will get hammered and they will lose support and it will fuel the fire for the haters.
They should have build up their brand through VC then CC and will win the public interest if they play good competitive rugby and will also generate interest from players.
Look at the current Kings team. How many of those players went there because they were offered a better contract by the Kings than other province? 3? It’s last chance saloon.
Surely Solly and Cheeky knows they will do more damage than good with their current squad and if they think that players from a relegated union will run to them they are surely fooling them self. Players are under contract and you will look at another legal issue. Do you want players that couldn’t cut in one team to give it a bash in your jersey?
Also do players want to go to a team who gets beaten by a team who ended at the bottom of the 2011 CC log in the VC 2012 quarter finals? My guess they will go overseas or sit on the bench at another union.
Now it’s a Lions vs. Kings battle and SARU is watching from the side lines enjoying their popcorn. Pathetic.
May 8th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Keohane and Watson are involved. Don’t expect anything to be what it may seem.
May 8th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
This should never have become a Lions vs Kings battle but it became one because certain media-men made it one. Yesterday one site even went so far to make these media-men look like the victims and when I responded to this twist of facts my reply was deleted.
The Lions have a bad record in Super Rugby. The fans know that and is as frustrated about it as anyone. We need no reminders. But so did the Reds … and they turned it around in one season. What if Australia killed the Reds at the end of 2010? What if SARU killed the Bulls when they struggled? Who is to say that the Lions won’t get it right in 2013? If the Reds could do so the Lions can also do it. The CC win last year showed that huge progress is under way but Lady Luck did not smile on the Lions in 2012 thus far.
SARU caused this mess and must fix this mess. The fight shouldn’t be with the Lions. I wish some in the media will aim their arrows straight at SARU (like Morné is correctly doing here).
Why not also help the Lions SARU? Why kill a team from SA’s largest population centre with a 100 year history to solve the Kings problem? You knew about this for how many years SARU? What have you done since McKeever’s time to fix the mess? How convenient that the Lions must die to help you fix your mess.
The Lions is looking for a new CEO. What if that CEO turns out to be the very same Tony McKeever now working on the other side … I’ve been proposing this very thing for a long time. Hell, wouldn’t that be fun and games!
May 8th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Leading on from a discussion Victor Matfield, Kobus Wiese and Naas Botha had on the current structure of the super rugby conference system, some ideas came out which I think is worthwhile having a look at.
Matfield beleives each conference should be played first as to double up not only as the Currie Cup in SA and the ITM Cup in New Zealand, but also as a preliminary round of pool games for the Super rugby tournament.
Once completed, the top 3 teams from each Conference qualifies for round two of the Super rugby competition, whereby all 3 teams from each country then plays all three teams of each other nations, this basically means 8 weeks of round two. At the end of round two, there will be a semi final and final for those teams who qualify.
For a lot of reasons this makes sense.
We have roughly 15 weeks before the June test window. So if the two round conference system is set up, you could even have different number of teams per country. South Africa can for example add the Southern Kings to have a total of 6 teams, NZ can do the same so these two countries will have 6 Super Franchises and Australia could possibly work on developing their 6th team with a future plan that could see them first develop players and perhaps in a few years add another team.
This method will not influence other countries when done on that basis. ZANZAR only need limit the maximum number of teams each conference have. Considering you have fifteen weeks, you do have enough time for 7 teams per conference considering home and away derbies.
Five teams ill take 10 weeks
Six Teams will take 12 weeks
Seven teams will take 14 weeks
So effectively you complete the round one of the competition before the june tests. (Which includes the Currie Cup and ITM cup.)
Once the June tests are completed, the top 9 teams then compete in round two. Looking at the time available, you need 8 weeks plus 2 for preperation of the Four Nations and another 10 weeks to complete the Super Rugby tournament. So a little shuffling is needed to move the June tests a little forward.
Super rugby round 1 – 6 teams maximum – 14 weeks. (added 4 weeks for preparation)
Midyear tests – 3 tests – 4 weeks (added 1 week for preparation)
Super rugby round 2 and finals – 11 weeks. (added 1 week for preparation)
The Rugby championship – 10 weeks (added 2 weeks for preparation)
End of year tours – 5 weeks (added 1 week for preparation)
This totals 44 weeks. Australia benefit because their “domestic” competition is now sustainable and forms part of the Super Rugby tournament, South Africa and New Zealand benefit, because they can continue their Currie Cup and ITM cup under the “guise” of the Super Rugby tournament.
All competitions are completed in blocks and do not interfere with any other.
There is a complete structure which is feasable and each country can add a 6th team if they so wish as it doesn’t impact on any other further calendar requirements or formats for any other country.
The climax of the Super Rugby Tournament will be much more competitive and extremely tense and exciting for spectators, and the “super” will have been put back into Super Rugby.
Consider the following:
Round two of the super rugby tournament consists of the following teams.
Chiefs
Highlanders
Crusaders
Stormers
Bulls
Sharks
Reds
Brumbies
Waratahs.
Can you imagine the quality of competition that will be witnessed by seeing these nine teams tackling each other?
Currently the Super Rugby Tournament provides each team with 8 derby matches, and 8 matches against teams from abroad. a total of 125 matches to be played.
When considering the new format, each team will still play the same number of local derby matches, each of the nine teams will play an additional 8 matches in round two, of which 2 will be derby matches and 6 will be against foreign team (Three travelling and three at home). This means the two extra derby matches which according to the people in the know, brings in more money and spectators anyway, plus six teams from abroad (which would cut costs on travelling and accommodation expenses, would result in exactly the same number of matches to be played.
However it is structured much better and also more cost effective.
The only structural change required, would be to move the June test window forward by two or three weeks to accommodate the rest of the calendar. so instead of completing the June tests at the end of june, it is completed middle of June.
This will still remain a ten month long season for the players, however much bettered structured.
Now if SANZAR can accommodate this type of strucutre, I promise I would stp complaining about the conference system and the Super rugby structure as a whole.
May 8th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
And please forget about the Cats idea. That didn’t work before and will not work in future. No-one can expect so many teams (Lions, Cheetahs, Griquas, Pumas, Leopards and Griffons) to share broadcasting, sponsorship and gate income and be competitive (while a team like the Sharks keep it all for themselves to buy these Cats member teams empty). Not to mention huge overheads to make it work and all the staff implications. What a flippen mess!
May 8th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Reply to biltongbek @ 1:09 pm: I have proposed that very same solution many times. Play the CC as our conference. Let the top three go through to play Aus and NZ’s top three in a Super 9 series.
May 8th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
What is utterly amazing is that SARU knew about the Kings when they negotiated the current S15 setup and did NOTHING to propose alternatives that would have solved the Kings dilemma once and for all. Why I say: Blame SARU (and leave the Lions out of the fight).
May 8th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Reply to biltongbek @ 1:09 pm:
Nice idea, SANZAR won’t fall for it.
Murdoch money (Newscorp) for Super Rugby is based on 120+ Super Rugby games, not 120 local games (which will only be of interest in those countries from a viewing number perspective) and a handful of international Super Rugby games.
Although interest from SA viewers will be high, those of Oz will drop significantly and given the local NZ ITM Cup audiences, not much of an improvement there.
Murdoch will offer less money to SANZAR members which means and already struggling NZ and Oz rugby market will be further strangled.
It’s a perfect world scenario, but not one that will fly with Newscorp.
May 8th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:17 pm:
I think to sum it up better, that scenario serves SA Rugby perfectly, but works against NZ and Oz – they won’t buy it.
May 8th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:17 pm:
Not sure I would agree with you.
The only difference in this setup is each team will play 6 overseas teams rather than 8.
May 8th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Spot-on Morne…
Reply to biltongbek @ 1:09 pm:
Yep I’ve been saying that (well not that all home conference games are played at the start and that they don’t all get to play international opposition) for quite some time… the Currie Cup no longer represents the best rugby players in RSA… the home and away legs in the S15 conference do.
VC becomes CC with one (or two) divisions… CC incorporated into S15… and the unions save a mint off no longer running an extra lower league competition in the year…
Reply to Kaaskyker @ 11:08 am:
You’re kidding yourself if you think Cheeky Watson is in this for the good of Eastern Province…
Reply to Kat @ 1:05 pm:
” This should never have become a Lions vs Kings battle ”
Of course not… and it shouldn’t even have come down to the Kings being the enemy either… however with them currently still being pumped by the likes of the Puma’s… their ‘entitlement’ attitude was/is always going to irk…
Another SARU fark-up from start to finish and it’s going to bite them in the end (read 2013)…
May 8th, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:19 pm: And guess who carries the whole thing but has too weak leadership to make sure they get the best deal?
The whole thing is build around Australia. NewsCorp has its roots in Australia. How long will we have to build rugby in Australia at our cost? NewsCorp money runs rugby in the SH. Without it our teams cannot afford the players … so NewsCorp get what it wants and Australia is their priority.
I want SA teams to play against European clubs. I wish the Lions could do so instead. If/when NewsCorp drops the ball SH rugby will be in big trouble. Better to get something else in place now.
May 8th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Reply to Kat @ 1:28 pm:
I would hate to see the South African domestic season become like the NH one.
One week you play RABO/AVIVA/TOP 14 and the next you play Heineken Cup, then back to Aviva and back to a test, it is an absolute mess up there.
May 8th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Reply to biltongbek @ 1:09 pm:
This is how I read your suggestion (using SA as an example):
5 franchises, play each home and away (doubling up as the Currie Cup).
Each franchise plays 8 games, multiply that by 5 franchises – 40 games.
You can multiply that by 3 (each SANZAR country doing the same) = 120 games only of interest to locals in that country.
Your round 2 has 9 teams playing each other once. That is 6 games each (assuming each country won’t play teams from their own country again???) multiplied by 9 = 54 games. If each team plays each other increase that to 72 games.
That is almost 50 games less than the total ‘conference’ games of 120 and it’s motivating that difference to Newscorp which becomes the trick.
International interest in the concept will only increase in Round 2 of that format, not when the local teams slug it out to see who ends up in the top 3.
As an example, I couldn’t be arsed to watch 40 Ozzie derbies!
The only reason I watch an Aussie derby now is because it might have a bearing on the fortunes of an SA side in the competition – which means I am actually forced to watch it and that is what Newscorp is after.
May 8th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:49 pm:
Problem with that is that at least 60 of top tier South African players (from the bottom two conference teams) never get the exposure to playing some of the current world number 1 and 2′s best players both home… and more importantly on the road in enemy country…
That for mine is a big negative…
May 8th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 2:01 pm:
Very important observation Bryce – and correct.
May 8th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:49 pm:
No not exactly.
The idea is there can be six teams in the SA conference or any other conferecne for that matter. These teams play home and away.
The total matches are actually 30 per conference,(if you multiply by your formula you are counting it double as two teams play in a match and not one).
So that gives you ninety derby matches.
Those that qualify for round two play all the teams that qualify, you don’t carry over points from round one for those derby matches already played.
So that is another 36 matches. Pluas then 3 finals.
It gives you 129 matches.
You could argue that those teams that do not ualify for the round two can go into a 1st division round two, where the other remianing teams play for a plate competition. This will not only increase the total number of matches which will increase television revenue and ticket revenue, but will solve the problem Bryce is talking about, where these teams will still travel.
Why this makes sense to me is that it solves SARU;s probelm with the Kings, and it is up to the frnachises to end in the top 3 to qualify for the Last 9.
May 8th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Reply to biltongbek @ 2:12 pm:
You are right, but 90 local matches only of interest to the local countries vs 39 international matches (inter-conference) which are the real money spinners won’t fly I’m afraid.
May 8th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Reply to biltongbek @ 2:12 pm:
No way Newscorp is going to want some international second division alongside the business end of the comp… doesn’t make fiscal sense…
And you’d still be left with scores of youngsters with potential and current Boks not playing the best in the world from NZ and Aus… particularly away…
I’ve no doubt the increase in games youngsters are playing away in NZ/Aus have translated into the increase in Super rugby away game upsets and more consistency…
May 8th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Okay guys, so how can SARU fix this mess? It seems that no matter what option is placed on the table it fails to provide a n acceptable solution. Someone will have to compromise … the question is just which compromise will be most acceptable with least fall-out?
May 8th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
The best way I see all boxes getting ticked is for the Kings to merge with the Sharks as it were before, until 2015 when extra teams can be accommodated. The deal with the Sharks to walk away from SR should never have been allowed in the first place. That created a lot of the problems (and money changed hands that disappeared into a big black hole). Let the Sharks sit with their old partners until 2015 and give them a larger slice of the broadcasting pie to pay back the money they handed EP back then.
May 8th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Reply to Kat @ 3:46 pm:
I have no problem with a relegation scenario (not play-off’s thats stupid imo).
Relegate the lowest team but don’t go make up such a rule half way through a season!
May 8th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Kings + Cheetahs = King Cheetahs. An animal that do exist.
I don’t see why the Kings should have their own franchise but the Lions and Cheetahs must merge to recreate the Cats. To start in a merged setup is best for the Kings surely. In so doing they can develop until 2015 when they can stand on their own and be competitive. Only practical merges for them geographically is with Sharks or Cheethas. Whoever they merge with get larger slice of broadcasting money.
May 8th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Morné, relegation creates problems with sponsors and losing the broadcasting money required to retain players and coaches (pay salaries). MTN won’t be happy at all to lose exposure if the Lions were to sit out. So it will be with any team. Fact is that teams in the SH depends on the broadcast money. Unless the team that sits out still gets 1/6 of that pie, but the sponsorship issue is still a huge problem.
May 8th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
The Bloem players will love to get paid to enjoy some quality time in PE. A real beach beats a Bloem shopping mall waterfront any day.
May 8th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Reply to Kat @ 3:46 pm:
And the Sharks surely need that merge..
This past weekend they were also knocked out of the VC at quarter final stage so maybe combined with the EPO they can make it to the VC semis next year…
Did anyone watch the game?
Classic…
76 mins Sharks score a converted try and lead 36-23…
Game over
78 mins = Bulls converted try
83 Mins = Bulls converted try – Tony Jantjes converts to win it.
37-36 Bulls win…
So ja…
_______________________________________________________
ps. I KNOW the Lions also got knocked out… by the top side with the most depth in SA…
The Sharks literally got knocked out by a sort of Strongish Tukkies side…
Losing when you extend to a 13 point lead with 4 minutes to play…
PRICELESS
So ja… give EP to the Shocks…
May 8th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Reply to Kat @ 3:57 pm:
Sponsors will adapt, sign 1 year deals with option to extend.
However…
And I say this reluctantly because I know it will not happen.
WE NEED PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN RUGBY UNIONS/FRANCHISES.
We expect these guys to operate in a professional environment yet SA Rugby wants to hold all the cards holding majority shares in each union…
May 8th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Reply to Kat @ 3:35 pm:
How can SARU sort this mess?
They’ll blame it on NZAR and Peters and then blag it again until 2015… the rinse and repeat…
I’ll tell you one thing… there will be no 6th team from any of SANZAR then too… if any teams are added they’ll be from Arg and the PI’s…
May 8th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Can someone please help me with the last 10 springbok coaches
May 8th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Ian Mac
Kitch
Markies
Carel
Mallet
Viljoen
Straeuli
White
De Villiers
Meyer
Before Ian Mac, John Williams
May 8th, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Thanks Morne. Do you think that Nick Mallets success can attributed to Carels vision and selection?
May 8th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
Reply to Vernonimous @ 7:03 pm:
Many believe that to be the case.
Personally I think Mallet proved himself beyond the Boks so in my books he is a great coach.
I do however agree that Carel laid the foundation for him which saved Nick the time to do that himself.
May 9th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Morne – well done !!!
A real pleasure to read all the arguments on this thread !!!
What a mature Blog !!!
May 9th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Reply to The Brand @ 3:31 pm:
Well, Solomons today explained how none of
his top players – and he names them – did not
take part in the snotting they received in the
Vodacom Cup, where 4 teams were better.
He then goes and talks about Super Rugby 2013
as if it is a fait accompli that the Kings
will be there.
Does he know anything we don’t know?
May 9th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Die OP-Kings kan nog ’n paar aanwinste voor die afskop van die Curriebeker-reeks ryker wees.
Alan Solomons, afrigter van die Kings, wou nie gister meer besonderhede bekend maak nie.
“Onderhandelinge is in ’n gevorderde stadium en die verkeerde woord hier of daar kan dit kelder,” het hy gesê.
Solomons het bygevoeg dat die Kings se span wat in die Curriebeker-reeks se Eerste Liga gaan speel, “heelwat anders” gaan lyk as die een wat nog verlede week in die kwarteindronde van die Vodacombeker-reeks gespeel het.
“Dis nie net omdat daar dalk nog ’n paar nuwe spelers bykom nie. Dis omdat ons in die tweede deel van die jaar net ons beste span gaan kies,” het hy gesê.
“Die jong ouens het baie geleer in die Vodacombeker-reeks – en dít sal vorentoe waardevol wees.
“Van hulle sal sekerlik die OP-Kings volgende jaar verteenwoordig wanneer die Southern Kings Super-rugby speel.”
Solomons het bygevoeg dat hy hoopvol is dat die meeste van sy voorste spelers binnekort van hul beserings sal herstel het.
Van die ervare manne wie se lywe gespaar is, sal ook met nuwe ywer rugby speel.
Onder die voorste spelers wat min, of glad nie in die Vodacombeker gespeel het nie, tel Luke Watson, SP Marais, Siyanda Grey, George Whitehead, Louis Strydom, Falie Oelschig, Wayne van Heerden, Barend Pieterse, Jaco Engels, Kevin Buys, Wayne Swart, Mzwandile Stick, Jongi Nokwe, Monty Dumond en André Schlechter.
Solomons sê die Kings sal gedurende die volgende paar weke gereeld kontaksessies teen die OP se o.21-span hê.
“Ons kan dalk ’n vriendskaplike wedstryd speel voor ons eerste wedstryd in die Curriebeker-reeks, afhangende van hoe die sessies teen die o.21’s verloop.”
Die Kings se eerste Curriebeker-wedstryd is op 29 Junie teen die Boland in Wellington.
Voor dít speel ’n Barbarians-span, wat uit Eersteliga-spelers in die suidelike provinsies gekies gaan word, op 13 Junie in Kimberley teen Engeland. ’n Paar spelers van die Kings, soos die agtsteman Vleis Engelbrecht, slot David Bullbring en die vleuels Norman Nelson, Marcello Sampson en Jongi Nokwe, kan dalk só ’n span haal.
“Ons sal besluite neem oor Kings-spelers se deelname aan dié wedstryd soos dit tersake raak. In dié stadium wag ons nog vir SA Rugby om ons te laat weet of hulle iemand gaan nodig hê.”
May 9th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Reply to Vernonimous @ 7:03 pm:
The only good foundation Carel laid was to demonstrate for all how stupid it is to play rugby without a place kicker.
In mathematical terms.
Lemma:
3 x mediocre kickers << 1 x good kicker
May 9th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Reply to Timeo @ 5:25 pm:
May 9th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Timeo, Mallett was quite happy to continue the policy himself until Honiball got injured in the ’99 World Cup!
May 9th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
What I find shameful (among other things) is the way the SA authorities have allowed the Currie Cup to become relegated to a secondary competition, when it should be the showcase of global tournaments.
To this end, what I would love to see (provided a sponsor could be found), is a withdrawal from all the Super competitions, and then money thrown at the Currie Cup to bring the world’s best players to SA.
Kinda like the IPL (but with real teams and genuine history and passion), we could stage the Currie Cup over two months (with large squads of the world’s best and two games a week), between the main international periods. Maybe in the NH offseason so we could recruit top players from French, English and Celtic leagues.
A bit of a pipedream(too many obstacles), I know, but it would be great if we pulled it off. Then we wouldn’t give a sh!t what the Australasians thought.
May 9th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Reply to il postino @ 7:01 pm:
Good to see you!
I think Sanzar and the players demanding
lots of money very much had Saru’s ass over
a barrel with Super Rugby. But Saru could at
least have been more adamant re the CC and
it’s value. Something on the lines Biltongbek
has in mind in post #5 above.
May 9th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Reply to il postino @ 6:54 pm:
Monty was nailing all the kicking duties during the unbeaten 17 game spree and 3N leading into JD Beer…
May 9th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Bryce, you have selective memory. Monty was pretty all over the place with his kicking. As was Honiball.
Nailed a fine kick in the wet in Perth in 98 though to win the match!
His consistent excellence only came in his second spell with the Boks.
May 9th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Reply to il postino @ 7:28 pm:
Quite right.
De Beer and Honiball were the kickers in ’97.
Monty only started as the regular kicker
it seems 6.12.1997 v the Kilts (68-10)
when he kicked 8 out of 9.
That was in his 10th test match.
May 13th, 2012 at 11:35 pm
This time I think it might be different.
Last time the Spears’ claim lacked legitimacy. They were promised a spot, after political pressure, even though they ended in 6th place in the open evaluation process. SARU quickly regretted their promise and reversed themselves as soon as the pressure was off.
Since then though the promise to find them a spot has been made over and over again so many times that it is now legit. At some point SARU has to find a way to deliver.
The Lions with their weak on-field performances, empty slum bound stadium and financial uncertainties is providing the way out.
If the the big 5 stick together the Kings will be screwed again but they might not. The two coastal teams know that either way they are safe. The Cheetahs and the Bulls will feel more secure if the Lions is no more. And if it is true that the Lions have not made payments to their partner unions then compensation from SARU will make them change sides also.
So I think that, unless the Lions engineer a miraculous on-field turn around in the next few weeks, the chances that we have Super Rugby in PE next year is pretty good.