Arbitration? Really? SANZAR is a farce
Roar Pro
By Cookie, 22 Oct 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super 15
108 Have your say
South Africa's Bulls captain Victor Matfield gestures to the fans after winning the semi-final of the Super 14 rugby match against New Zealand Crusaders at the Loftus Versfeld stadium in Pretoria, South Africa, Saturday May 23, 2009. The Bulls defeated the Crusaders 36-23. (AP Photo/Themba Hadebe
The fact the SANZAR is sending the decision for the 15th team to arbitrators shows up SANZAR for the farce it is. Did anyone think that it would be any different?
Are they both so gullible, stupid and ignorant that they really thought that one would vote for the other?
What a waste of time and and embarrassment for rugby.
What is, or was, New Zealand’s stance? How much money has been spent? How many lunches, dinners and stays in extravagant hotels did they enjoy?
I’m not certain about how they work anything much out, but seriously this looks really really stupid and doesn’t justify a long thought out article, merely the creation of a forum for anyone else who thinks this whole thing is a farce to let rip and vent their exacerbation, no matter which side of the fence you’re from.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (27)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super 15
Billo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 1:29am | Report comment
I don’t think it’s a farce, merely a reflection of how politicised SANZAR is, particularly the South African element of it.
The decision had to be unanimous, or it had to go to arbitration.
The South African element of SANZAR didn’t want to lose face by conceding the 15th spot to Melbourne, so they went to a supposedly independent arbitration, which will make the award to Melbourne.
In the long term I’m not sure that SANZAR is a viable body for the ARU to be affiliated to.
Go_the_Wannabe's said | October 22nd 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Yes, this is a political decision. Yes, it has gone to arbitration. Yes, logic should prevail and Melbourne should get the nod.
BUT – SA know this…….this is a way of getting some political capital to use at a later date. “Oh, alright, we’ll bow to arbitration, but boy we better get all home games for the next TN!!!!!”
This is what rugby has become…..a bargaining chip for television rights and big business.
Why, oh why didn’t we leave it as an amateur game and just let the players be paid through the back door?
Too late now!!!!!
Lee said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:03am | Report comment
I don’t think that SARU ever actually thought they would get the new franchise, it is merely them trying to show the South African government that they tried to get the Southern Kings in but couldn’t. Simple as that. Arbitration will definately come out in favour of a Melbourne franchise but SARU had to keep the government off their backs.
Don’t worry Aussies, you will get your sixth team – whether that is good or bad – it will just take a few months longer, and then everyone comes out individually looking good even if SANZAR as a whole doesn’t.
Vented Relief said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Fifth team. I don’t think we could justify a Tasmanian team….. yet.
Lee said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Woops sorry….I thought Melbourne was a Union centre surely they could get 2 teams there?
altus said | October 22nd 2009 @ 5:14am | Report comment
Lee, completely agree. I especially dont think wants to run a franchise playing in the Aussie conference. It is however a function of SA rugby politics which forces them to fight this battle.
cookie said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:28am | Report comment
Billo would Masquerade be a better word for the whole situation?
It’s not so much the fact that Melbourne is the obvious choice and the arbitrators will (don’t count your chickens till they hatch) award it to Melbourne….It’s the fact that so much money and time has been wasted… perhaps they should have sent it straight to the arbitrators in the first place?
LeftArmSpinner said | October 22nd 2009 @ 6:51am | Report comment
If you want run by to be a truly international sport, you need to be for behaviour that appears to be Outside the normal range.
At the SANZAR boardtable, we are witnessing exactly that. Until recently, the widely portrayed traits that held South African rugby back will are on display for everyone to see. The bullying, “try it on”, illogical, patronising, “backs to the wall” condescending national traits naturally present themselves in national sporting teams and large organisations.
This is the same country who continued to operate Apartheid face of overwhelming national condemnation and massive sanctions. A quick review of the policy, even from the South African National POV, showed it to be illogical, commercially the suicidal and just plain daft. Can you really expect to achieve national growth and national happiness when you have disenfranchised the majority of the population??
That the springboks are current world, super 14 tri nations champions is as being due to them subjugating these destructive team and national traits. It is clear that these traits simmer just below the surface, has confirmed by the Burger and Botha suspensions.
In summary, if you want any international sporting organisation, be prepared for full range of behaviour.
So, back to the rugby. The proposal is for South Africa to have one team had more than its partner NZ and the two teams more than its other partner Australia. Further, this new South African team will play in a conference where we can both expect little local Australian support (look how hard the Melbourne Storm or Syd Swans do it) and in a time zone that will savage most of its local south African support.
The South African behaviour on this issue is all the hallmarks of its deep seated national psyche and behavioural patterns. If it is allowed to succeed, and that will require both the defeat of John O’Neill and “turning” of Steve Tew, it will strike a massive blow on southern hemisphere and World rugby. If all else fails, the IRB can’t and won’t let it happen.
Lee said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Are you South African? If not please explain how you know so much about the natinoal psyche of South Africa?
I can’t see how seemingly logical people don’t quite realise that the point of SANZAR is not to grow the Australian game, nor the South African one nor the Kiwis. That is down to each union, there seems to be a belief in Australia that SANZAR should make the decisions that only benefit Australian Rugby, due to its “we are so hard done by we have 3 other codes to compete against” mentality.
South Africa has a very unique political aspect to deal with when it comes to sport, as already explained SARU hand has been forced by the government, so please do not get to the point of labelling this as part of SA national psyche. I wouldn’t label the ARUs stubborness and self-centred behaviour in regards to the ELVs etc as being part of the National Australian psyche of having to prove they are their own nation and not simply the remnants of a forgotten post of the old empire.
And please South Africans will acknowledge the error and stupidity nd inhumanity of apartheid. It is a dark period of our history that we are trying to correct. However, people in glass houses should not throw stones, and Australias race relations with its indigenous persons should hardly be held up as a “how to” guide to race relations.
stillmissit said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
I disagree with LAS on this one to some degree. I have played first grade rugby in the 70′s in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia and from a players perspective South Africa was miles ahead of the rest. Great approach to the game and preparation and the professionalism was very high even in those days.
The politics is something different and I haven’t been back since then. It strikes me as a form of madness to say “we must all agree” when do you ever get a number greater than 2 to agree? Not often in my book.
They should have a (independent) chair who has the casting vote as is done by most chairs in boardrooms around the world.
THIS IS BLOODY PATHETIC!
big Kev said | October 23rd 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
Lee, I am South African and while LAS is wrong about this particular issue and it is very clear SARU has to follow this path to show they did all they could, I think he has the South Africa Psyche pretty much spot on. It was built from Afrikaner arrogance but it also includes the much more sinister element of ANC “backs against the wall” victim syndrome (see Caster Semanya) – it definitely exists.
John Ryan said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:06am | Report comment
Hang on, I dont think the ARU joined in the international condemnation, or the UK rugby union,I thought Thatcher did not mind it either,seem to remember the words “keep politics out of sport”,Petersen in QLD with his goon squads, Askin in Sydney,people who condemned Apartheid were ridiculed as lefty’s commos ect,not an attempt to rewrite History is it
If I am wrong sorry but thats how I remember it
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Trans Tasman Cup anyone?
It is a farce, pure and simple. I certainly hope the arbitration awards it to Melbourne, but as someone said, don’t count your chickens. Imagine the faecal matter hitting the fan if they award it to the Kings.
I agree with LAS’s comments about the Saafies. If they want a team for “blacks”, then chop the Cheetahs or Lions and put in the Kings. They were meant to do it several years ago for the Spears, and what happened? Rather than bite the bullet, they expect we Aussies to cop it for their inability to fit 6 teams into 5.
I don’t care if this is just the SARU pandering to the SAf government. It is a waste of time and money. perhaps the SAF government would be better off putting all the money they will (hopefully) waste on this farce into black junior development, so they have a stronger team for the Super 18 in 2013 on. If we Aussies and Kiwis are still willing to put up with them.
Brett McKay said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
It certainly raises massive questions about the ongoing vaibility of the current SANZAR setup, at the very least. After the 6 team finals debate (which also ended in no decision, and therefore the status quo), this is the second major decision SANZAR have been unable to make in consecutive seasons. Even with the broadcasters hinting that Melbourne would be worth more money in rights value than Port Elizabeth, the rumour of South African govt compensation suddenly emerged.
I know the joke was made yesterday about whether the ARU and NZRU stuill had their TT plan, but if this is the way SANZAR is going to operate (ie, through non-decision and arbitration), does it even have a future??
Redb said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Brett,
How long will the arbitration process take?
Redb
Brett McKay said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Redb, see my post below – that’s my NEXT concern!!
mudskipper said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment
South Africa was created by awkward politics and still administers its self interest this way. It’s the nature of the beast. I’m more than happy to lose the South African branch of the S14 (15) and start fresh with a home and away Super 10 competition with the five New Zealand provinces and five Australian provinces (including Melbourne).
The Kings offer zero to either AUS or NZ. If South Africans politics has become so blind to the outside world and to their business and sporting partners, I say leave them to themselves in isolation for another 20 years until they realize that sometimes “you get on. to get along” for the benefit of all….
The Melbourne bid has it all; a new world-class stadium, new grass roots supporters, a new S15 city, committed sponsors, Victoria State government support and an excellent wider broadcasting market place. Not to mention it completes the 5-team conference set up for an expanded S15 model.
Lastly the Kings aren’t even in the SA Currie Cup in their own country. Perhaps the South Africans should back them there first.
formeropenside said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment
*shrug*
Australia really does not need a 5th Super team; there will be too much dilution of already thin playing stocks. So hopefully the Spears will somehow get the nod.
If JON wants to build Australian rugby, its an ARC, or getting Oz teams into the NPC that would help, not another “franchise” set up outside rugby heartlands.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
What is up with all this Trans Tasman competition ideas coming from Australian roarers.
Kiwis don’t want Australians in their ANZC is it that hard to understand?
It is a domestic competition that New Zealanders want to keep as domestic, if Aussies want to play in it they can join a local club then hopefully get selected into the provincial team.
The TT idea was floated purely as a backup should SANZAR fail but it is not something Kiwis actually want. I have seen one suggestion of a TT with 5 Aus and 5 NZ teams. You cannot be serious? I’d put money on the current top ten ANZC teams beating or pushing both WA and Qld at the moment I’d even go as far as saying they would also push the botttom three Saffa teams over. That is the most ridiculous proposal I have come across yet.
Australia should not be given a team to even up the numbers in any rugby competition. They should be given teams because they warrant them and can sustain them, same goes for South Africa. If you look at my below post it is clearly evident that neither country meets this criteria.
How about leave our copmpetition out of it. Its getting tiring.
The day the NZRU kills off or dilutes our domestic competition further for the sake of Australia will be the death of rugby in New Zealand and that will never be allowed to happen
formeropenside said | October 22nd 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
I’d rather an ARC, but the idea of some Oz teams in the NPC has been floated as a less costly version of that, and I understood there was some interest in the idea in NZ too. If not, then not.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
The only interest shown was when the SANZAR was on the brink of falling over and that was it. The domestic structure was always going to be protected. However it seems many roarers think that there is an overwhelming feeling that kiwis are going to open up their DOMESTIC competition to allow Australian teams in.
Most Kiwis and I can say that comfortably don’t believe for a second that Australia deserves a fifth franchise in super rugby let alone 5 teams each in a TT competition that will undermine the ANZC.
The uproar at present over the axing of four teams from the top flight is already causing much anxiety and in all likeliness this too will head to arbitration.
New Zealanders will not be happy about more teams being cut to accomodate struggling Australian teams.
I have read some outrageous posts of late in regards to the ANZC and it shows how little many outside of NZ actually know about it.
Australia needs to start its own viable domestic competiton and stop piggy backing on the Super concept. It is not the duty of South Africa or New Zealand to fix your ailing rugby system.
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
we dont believe it is their duty. i dont know why people keep on sprouting this! we are one of three members of SANZAR. By rights NZ and SA should get exactly what they want.
You need to ask yourself why NZ and SA have made the decisions they have, and stop blaming the ARU.
Start thinking about money. Its all about money. And its all very simple. Thsi is not blokes getting together for a game and a beer afterwards. This is business.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
You guys can’t even get rugby to FTA don’t start talking money with me.
Its pretty obvious Australia is the weakest union financially also, why else would they cut a domestic competition after one year. Why else did they withdraw Australia A from the pacific nations cup?
Thats right its financial reds fan.
Australia stands to gain the most from this hence the reason why some roarers are going on and on about it.
Australia just does not create the revenue that you like to think it does.
Using your reasoning you would like to admit another Aus and South African team all for the sake of a dollar, when in reality fans don’t want to see one sided cricket scores they will turn to a competition that is competitive and exciting ala the NRL or AFL and therefore taking their dollar with them. You get what you pay for is what they say and I certainly would not want to pay to see rubbish teams get spanked week in week out and i’d say the large majority would be with me on this one.
Australia needs to drop the victim mentality and grow some big furries and step up to the plate. deliver the results and the accolades will come. currently neither Aus or SA deserve another team.
As is its generally the same old teams fighting it out for the wooden spoon and more often than not it is the South Africans and Australian franchises, Yes someone has to come last but do you really want to increase the odds of it being another Australian team taking the wooden spoon home?
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
and straight away you go back to the “we have the best players” argument. This isn’t what it is about.
Can you answer this for me, why does NZ partake in Super Rugby and agree to its expansion? Tell me about the benefits your country gains?
What I hear is that you get none, and that you are the great benevolent rugby nation. That is rubbish. Have a good think about why your country makes the decisions it does.
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Fox needs content and pays more than the FTA channels. It’s as simple business choice.
Is Super Rugby on FTA in NZ? I thought it was on Sky?
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
The NRL and A-league are not the same. SANZAR is a three way partnership. The A-league and NRL are Australian comps which NZ teams have been allowed to join.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Australia has the talent and the structure to support a fifth team and the development of players for all five super teams.
Don’t come out me accussing me of things I never said, of course New Zealand gains from it as does South Africa.
However we can sustain the teams due to having a infrastructure in place where we are constantly developing players.
What Australias big argument is we need this team to deveop our players.
Well sorry no that is what a domestic competition is for!
Australian teams are struggling as it is and their is only four of them.
In 07 and 09 not one Australian team made the semi finals it is very telling and indicative of the state of Australian rugby. To be successful at super rugby you need a solid domestic base and currently Australia doesn’t have that.
Stop trying to run before you have learnt how to walk.
I’m not pro South Africa getting the team either far from it their record is even more appalling considering how revered rugby is in the republic. what I am saying is this tournament should not be used as a surrogate domestic competition for Australia.
Argentina has their own domestic competition and they don’t get anywhere near the same amount of money as Australia.
Everyone bar Australia in the SH has a competition to sustain their teams yet you constantly imply that it is up to SANZAR to pull you out of the rut Australian rugby is in.
How about getting your current 4 teams performing and performing well before you ask for a fifth
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Prime shows ANZC matches although delayed.
Also SANZAR has never been an qual partnership and that can be seen from day one. SANZAR is the product of what each country can support. Australias playing resources aren’t good enough to demand a equal third. No matter what the Australian Conference will undoubtedly be the weakest of the three as it is why on earth would you want to weaken it further?
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Hermin.
SANZAR is equal in that all decisions must be unanimous.
lets face it. News Ltd make the decisions. SANZAR just announce them.
You still havent been able to articulate why your country is involved. I’m interested to see what benefits people think Super Rugby has.
reading some of these blogs you’d think everyone wanted it gone…. i think you’d find we’d all be alot poorer.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Reds fan
Why do i need to Articulate the obvious benefits from Super rugby,
The only ones I see saying that it should be done away with are Australians, South Africans and Kiwis seem happy with it at the moment bored a little yes but definately not calling for an end to it. Go back through the threads and take note of who is calling for a HK cup style tournament. On that note do remember NZ has a club competion under every provincial team and the top clubs from every province would easily foot it with the best clubs Australia has to offer. Yet for some reason posters think that Aus clubs could foot it with the CC and ANZC provincial teams seriously they are dreaming.
How about reds fan you articulate to me why Australia deserves another team. Articulate to me why they should be given an equal share when it is clearly obvious they are not returning the quality of rugby to warrant it!
how about you articulate to me why NZ should open up its domestic competition to allow Australian teams in?
Come on do tell, if you ask me New Zealand has done more than its fair share by bringing Australian rugby up to speed and its about time Australia took the initiative to stand on its own to feet.
what you are missing is that Australia just cannot support a fifth team you do not have the development processes in place and your teams will be the weaker for it. I certainly do not pay and will not be paying to watch an Australian development competition disguised as a Super conference.
Like I said when they warrant it I will have no qualms in them getting the team or the financial bonuses that go with it. But at the moment I am getting rather tired of this victim and handout mentality that is Australian rugby
reds fan said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Hermin.
I dont want the ANZC opened to Australian teams. Our provincial teams , which are our state teams , can compete with your provincial teams. You need to compare like with like.
Melb should get the franchise because the broadcaster is offering tens of millions more in revenue, which we all share in. I dont see that as a hand out mentality nor a victim mentality.
revenue share isn’t based solely on team performance. its also about tv rights and advert revenues. team performance has only a small part to play and we must all accept that there has to be poor performers. but its not reaosn to stop growing the comp if SANZAR nations think that is the best way to compete with the money on offer in the north.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Hermin
to follow up what red said, and to repeat a comment from a couple of days back: as soon as rugby went professional, Murdoch flashed the cash, and all three unions took it.
This is where we are 13 years later.
We either complete the evenly split 15 team comp, or we disband it and go do something esle.
But I honestly doubt that the dismantling of super rugby is in NZ interests as well.
I can’t imagine anything being better at producing international standard rugby players than super rugby.
Hermin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Pip
I never said Super rugby should be dismantled please show me where I did.
What I said is Australia doesn’t warrent a fifth team they do not deserve it nor do they have the depth to fill it.
I’m sick to depth of hearing we should have it because they have five,
Do you see New Zealand screaming out for another 9 teams in the A league another 7 teams in the ANBL or another 15 teams in the NRL to even out the numbers no thats right we don’t because we know we cannot sustain them.
Its pretty simple really you don’t have the talent to fill a team and you never will untill you can run and maintain a domestic competition over and above that of club rugby.
Pippinu said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Yes, maybe – but there is an argument that says more teams mean more opportuntieis, more incentives, etc.
In other comps, like the A-League and the AFL, we often hear this line that more teams will dilute the quality – and yet the quality of both comps has never been higher.
Also, I’m wondering what the possibilities are to incorporate players from overseas into the new Melbourne franchise?
Bay35Pablo said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Hermin, the TT is the alternative to the S14/15, not the NZC. Pay attention.
Gary said | October 23rd 2009 @ 12:05am | Report comment
Why WA? The force beat all three of the other Australian teams last year?
Justin said | October 22nd 2009 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
And SA really need 4 teams in the bottom half of the table do they?
Mushi said | October 22nd 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Is SANZAR that different to any other multi national political body? No one would commit to joining the body if they believed their national fate could be directed by other nations completely against their wishes.
If the representatives of SA believe that South African rugby isn’t better served by an additional Australian team then it why in their right mind would they press forward.
I’m sure that the south Africans could put forward a very compelling case as to why Australia shouldn’t get a 5th franchise. Just as we Aussie can put forward a case for why we should. Why are we automatically in the right?
The more important thing is to re-examine wether the concept of SANZAR now achieves the goals of each of the three nations independently?