Well known fantasy novelist Sir Terence David John Pratchett once said “They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it’s not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.”
If there is one aspect of SANZAR I can do without, it would be the misinformation, half-truths and general secrecy of what they do.
Press releases from SANZAR are akin to ‘teasing’ the rugby public with just enough information to set us all into a frenzy.
An interview with either Bill Pulver, Steve Tew or Jurie Roux reminds me of these awful Soapies our wives watch with regular monotony. They are characterised by back stabbing, people falling in and out of love inside of one week and the famous stare into the camera prior to the episode ending may not be sport, but I am confident these Soapie-lovers feel the same frustration and addiction to their chosen pastime as us.
The only difference is sport is real, and therefore stirs emotions and parochial rivalries that can turn out to be rather unpleasant at times.
The biggest challenge we face with these debates, in regards to the future of Super Rugby, is not enough information – a lack of understanding of what goes on behind those boardroom doors and the fact that decisions made behind said doors seem to be made half-arsed and without consulting the actual people funding Rugby by way of tickets, subscriptions to Pay TV and the merchandise we buy on a regular basis.
Now it may be understandable that each franchise head would want his supporters to think the bad ideas come from another, and that their management is looking after the interest of their players and fans.
But, as Pratchett suggests, half the information is not sufficient to make conclusions, in fact it makes us jump the gun and leads us to make judgments based on half-truths, ignoring the “other side of the coin” as we sit in our armchairs.
Criticism towards SARU has been a regular feature on The Roar since the desire for a sixth Franchise emerged, and granted most South African fans believe a sixth Franchise is a step too far.
Others have suggested that it was the insistence of SARU that the Conference model has been embraced by SANZAR, whilst others have suggested the ARU demanded more local derbies to increase the number of local matches making up for a lack of domestic rugby in Australia.
It has also been suggested that SARU demanded a guaranteed play-off match at the end of regular season.
South African supporters have been disillusioned with SARU due to the income split and the general poor manner in which they deem SARU have handled negotiations during the past 18 years.
There are likely many more accusations, some based on fact, and others based on pure conjecture that can be mentioned, but amidst all the flying accusations and disapproval of the proposed format one aspect has been completely ignored.
We are all in the same boat. Be it whether the ARU is staring financial ruin in the face, SARU being pressured by politics, the NZRU simply being swept along in the maelstrom of the other two Unions.
The reality is we are losing players by the hundred every year, France and Japan being the two most active participants in recruiting our talent, and the rest of Europe snatching up the others.
Whether by design or by accident, the press releases from SANZAR has created a divide amongst SANZAR fans. Where we should stand together and be the voice that tells SANZAR what we as fans want, we have fallen apart and now throw stones at each other.
The only real fact we have is that SARU wants a sixth team, whether they can justify it in terms of providing a quality team is moot.
Unless we can get our collective hands on the transcripts of previous negotiations and confirm the accusations most of what we debate is merely hearsay.
One thing is certain, very few of the South African fans, Australian fans or New Zealand fans are enamoured with the direction SANZAR is moving towards.
What was once our competition, which we followed with pride and interest, will soon become a global catastrophe with conferences comprised of fractured sides and the true value of the competition that we held on to for so long will dissipate.
Whether Super Rugby as we know it will still be around in the next ten to twenty years or has morphed is unknown. We do, however, need to find something to hold onto in this mess. For myself it will be the very few inter-conference matches that will remain once the I’s have been dotted and the T’s have been crossed.
In the meantime let us not forget that we all want the best for our respective sides, but a little better understanding of the “other side of the coin” might be prudent.
Godfrey Afrika
Guest
One correction BB. Its not the politics that are pressing SARU at the moment, but the lack of corporatd governance with a CEO that will derail any talks with the other Zanzar partners that doesnt talk to his pockets. He still owe 2,2 million USD to the University of Stellenbosch in Stormers land who was his former employer and whom he defrauded. I agree that tge rugby fans and cable subscribers should make our voices count. I salute!!!
Time to jump ship
Guest
Problem with rugby is it wants to be for the people in the classes, then it tries to beg the masses to rock up. You cannot have it both ways.
Perhaps you should read the comment in context with the post from John, eh? Hello BB, I always enjoy your posts and insights. i think you are correct. unfortunately, i think it is South African hubris that will bring it about. You may have more players, but that”s about it. We – Australia, New Zealand and South Africa – have each won two World Cups. All three countries have teams that have enjoyed Super 15 or predeccesor success. Yet only SA is demanding a sixth team. Why? You perennially have a team – or more – at the bottom of the table. As does Australia – and New Zealand. Yet look at the Force this year. South African arrogance will end the current tournament – perhaps for the better, perhaps not. I think your national side will suffer. The SUper 15 has proven innovative and by removing yourselves i believe you will revert to your traditional style. two to three years from now you will be overrun. Remember the All Blacks sides of the past? the backs made up the numbers. Now we talk about Kirwan and Lomu and Umaga and Carter. They evolved. You will not.
Midfielder
Guest
Sport as a business has some unique qualities … its supporters fall into a number of character types.. the hard core rusted on, the committed fan, the casual, the bandwagon fan. Each group has different levels of commitment, all codes have their hard core rusted on fans more than likely resulting in no sport in the foreseeable future will vanish. Rugby has for decades applied a top down approach and in the pre professional days international matches and travelling tours provided income… SANDZAR has taken to the top down approach with a gusto and determination that is a sight to behold. Driven as Sheek has posted above often by money rather than long term development plans.. Australian Rugby has replaced Football as the worst run game in Australia…. I am ever amazed at the opportunities gifted to Rugby that somehow a key to a gold mine was turned into a large stone chained around the neck of a swimmer in deep water… IMO the beyond obvious example is the ABC broadcast of the Shute Shield in Sydney & Brisbane for as long as I can remember… Rather than take the bull by the horns and develop a senior Shute Competition with the best teams from the ACT, Sydney, & Brisbane and have standards of coaching etc that needed to be met with maybe regulation of the team coming last as in many Football competitions….. Essentially rather than develop a FTA broadcast product into a show piece to highlight rugby… it was robbed of its best players had some incredibility weak teams in it … allowed a university with no juniors to become the power team. So the show case FTA broadcast become a substandard competition that showed Rugby in a poor light… Is the new NCR the answer TBH I have no idea .. what I can say is SANZAR does little to help park teams and has made the Shute competition an embracement to watch… this has hurt Rugby a lot… and it’s the hard core rusted on and the committed fans that are hanging in there …
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
You seem to care only about what you yourself watch on TV. I am reminding you that your 'option' would have real consequences for South Africa's world rankings as other nations are moving towards regularly testing themselves against the best in Europe, Asia Pacific and elsewhere. Super Rugby in NZ combined with games against the best South African players based in Japan and teams made up of Pacific Island players will make up a strong competition for players to develop. South Africa going it alone. more of a backwards step as you clearly said yourself. Not testing yourself against the best can only hurt.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
biltongbek said | April 9th 2014 @ 5:25am | Report comment "Hi John, whether South African rugby will evolve or not, that we will only be able to judge once it happens. From that perspective I prefer to think positively about how we will adapt if and when it happens. I do not see a future for us in Europe, and I hope to hell we don’t go that direction. Much like the French have a top 14 I believe we can go the same route, we could have a 26 week round robin with finals, that will take care of the domestic season. Then add Tests to the mix and we will have a season full enough to satisfy our population. Instead of Super XV, Heineken Cup style tournaments involving other nations we could have a “all Stars” type tournament with the four best in each position being drafted into a South, West, East and North team. Have a home and away round robin taking six weeks, it can replace any preparation the top players would need to get used to tournaments like the RWC, Rugby Championship or whatever. The secret to this would be to ensure good marketing, exposure to a bigger market, some free to air matches on SABC and some serious investment by corporate companies, it might be challenging, but I don’t think it is insurmountable. As for not playing against New Zealand’s Franchises, it goes both ways, they won’t get to test their players against us as we won’t get to test our players against them. There is also a case for “familiarity breeding contempt” and by stepping away test rugby will be even more special. Sure we will lose many players seeking the big bucks, but it isn’t like we are holding onto them now, are we?" As you can see BB you may forget what you write immediately after you say or write it but most people like me have perfectly well functioning memories. I can remember and building on what I see and read. Go back and read what else you wrote it that piece which mirrors exactly word for word what I have written as my own opinion herre about NZ and AUS working together to pivot towards Japan. Disingenuous or bad memory? You see your record of posts is not deleted. So it creates a small issue for you. You are hardly in the camp of isolation being 'good' for South African rugby at all. Neither would anyone else. If the Springboks didn't play other International teams regularly would they 'evolve'? If clubs didn't regularly play against the other best clubs would they get better and test their mettle? Your logic is severely faulty.
Johnno
Guest
No Rainbow Nation, BB wrote an article with this one of the lines in it about a prized lamb, he's knows what im talking about.
Rainbow Nation
Guest
Good article BB! Cant see SANZAR listening though.As to Owen's comments; Sounds like the troll gets bored and will argue with himself if that's the only opportunity he has...
Johnno
Guest
Forget SANZAR BB. When the prodigal son returns it is customary to slaughter your prized lamb, i'm not the prodigal son but when is the roast lamb ready im hungry BB.
Old Bugger
Guest
BB Actually, while cost is a factor in the travelling aspect, this can be mitigated at the time of negotiating a new SR/RC deal. I believe the most significant impact of travel was the durations away from home and its affects on players. SA players had 2 countries to visit hence a longer absence from home and research has shown that the travel aspect, does affect performance. Admittedly, this affect on players is, in all likelihood, going to increase with the admission of Argentina and either Japan or Singapore. I have always understood reasons why the conference derbies eventuated mainly to minimse the travel impacts upon player performance even though I'd rather see all teams play each other. But, it doesn't look like an all-in round robin comp will eventuate unless someone finds a way to overcome player performance impacts due to travel. You have alluded to fatigue impacts from travel in your response above. I'm not sure that SANZAR player stocks will be affected by the new teams joining the comp so I'm keeping an open mind that it may present an opportunity for an influx of PI players combining with the local roster players. Of course, some players from SANZAR will be attracted to join the new sides from both Argentina and Singapore/Japan - that, is a given....but I don't believe the defections will be from one country and suggest they will be spread across SANZAR. It will happen cos its not a matter of if it will but, when it will. Finally, like all new beginnings, it will always come down to an argument of quality versus quantity. However, if we are really sincere about quality for instance, in the eyes of NH supporters, our SR/RC competitions were just slap, dash, throw the ball everywhere that lacked the substance of forward exchanges when compared to the style being played in NH competitions. So half the rugby fraternity showed disdain for SR/RC while half couldn't get enough of it. Which hemisphere competitions are the best?? My biased SH belief will always say SR/RC but that's because its compared against the NH comp. In terms of quantity, I could argue that NH comps provide far greater game time than SR/RC but what is the impact upon the players? In SANZAR, NZRU in particular, has always been cognitive about player welfare and constantly monitoring the impacts of game time upon players - which provides another reason that I believe is a catalyst for initiating the conference/derby competitions being played in SR....too mitigate and minimise the amount of rugby a player is asked to play in any given season. Where am I going with this?? IMO, anyone who reckons the quality of this or the quantity of that is either increasing or decreasing the final SR/RC product just needs to take stock and ask themselves....compared to what?? There is no other comparison except the competition played in NH.....and as I've already mentioned, I'm biased when it comes to that comparison and I'll always revert to SR/RC as being better than the club and 6N comps up north. Except, for the revenues being generated up north but that has nothing to do with the quality or quantity of the NH competitions - it has everything to do with the potential viewership and fan base available to the broadcast network. To that end, I agree with you that our current SANZAR economies are too small - but, if you accept that as being a disadvantage, then surely my friend you will accept that the only advantage must be to expand that viewership and economy and to encompass new partners with a large populus that will hopefully, encourage more meaningful negotiations between SANZAR and its broadcaster. We have to start somewhere otherwise SH rugby will be overcome by its northern neighbours to the point where our comps will become breeding nurseries, for the rich NH clubs....and that, will definitely stick in my craw, if it happens.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Actually you are still arguing with yourself BB and many people who agree with your main opinion. You see withdrawing South Africa from world rugby as you suggest. No regular club competition for its domestic leagues against foreign teams has been argued by most on the Roar and you to be potentially detrimental to the Springboks. You are rewriting your own opinions. An unfortunately unless Europe agreed to start regular games or admit SA into their league, being in the International club rugby wilderness will affect the Springboks over time. You said as much yourself as have others. I agree Europe will want to play SA clubs but we don't know when. The inbred style created by South Africa retreating and teams not testing themselves against the best as is done kn NZ AUS and Europe will mean the Springboks slowly slide on World rankings.
" it could put the Springboks in International rugby wilderness for years until the domestic comp was built back to strength" Never said it would affect the Springboks.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
You yourself said as much in previous threads. Back to the disingenuous thing again. You advocated for pulling out of Super Rugby and concentrating on Currie Cup and said it could put the Springboks in International rugby wilderness for years until the domestic comp was built back to strength. If you cannot remember things you have said you should stop changing your opinions so often, or as it appears in the OP disingenuously obscuring them. I think SA needs to do what is best for SA. if they decide to pull out it might be the best move in the long run. But there will be real costs. But no costs to NZ and AUS as you and others like to assert. Super rugby is fine in the NZ-AUS-Asia Pacific region. So its not SANZAR you need to be complaining about. Tew and Pulver know exactly what they are doing.
I am absolutely amazed at the level of belief you put into your opinions stated as fact. Can you tell me what the lotto numbers will be next week?
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Yes, but it will mean South Africa slipping in World rankings. No doubt. How will you like getting beaten by the USA, Samoa and Scotland in a regular basis when the equivalent of more than 5 full Super teams of your best players are playing abroad in their prime for the money and as you say "unavailable". Whipping boys.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
NZ and AUS actually have a strong Asia Pacific Conference that will be able to continue with or without SA. it is plainly obvious that rather than giving ground to SA the Australasian partners have shrewdly positioned themselves for the future. South Africa's choice to withdraw from Super Rugby and absorb their teams into a more powerful Currie Cup or to link with Europe may come up at the next negotiations. They will probably be met with a wave. Super Rugby would not finish without South Africa. South Africas best players are in Japan and they are likely to make up future Super Rugby teams with or without SARU. You may get what you want BB. But it will probably be excluding the top 150 South African rugby players in any one year. They will be in Europe or in Super Rugby.
Charcoal
Guest
What a lot of crap. You don't have a clue. Open your eyes and see what the fans of the game in SA, NZ and Aus actually WANT. That's what counts the most. You have conveniently left them out of the equation. If players from either of the three conferences want to chase the money, then that is their prerogative, but there will always be someone to replace them. And they have no one to blame but themselves if they are ignored in selection for the respective national teams.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Actually you will notice the South African teams never made an issue about travelling to Argentina. There is a reason. Scientifically, jet lag is much worse travelling against the date line. The travel before the game is most important apparently, so it was apparently easier for NZ and Australian teams to travel to SA than vice versa. Therefore Argentina can be ignored. Its the other direction. There two games in either Australia or NZ in the new format. In the old format there were four. Two in each country. In the new format teams will go to either AUS or NZ in alternate years. This was done to alleviate the travel concerns of the South African teams. Three conferences of 6 would have kept the competition more equal. A round robin more pure. SA strongly preferred not to travel to both countries each year.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Only South African teams complain about travel.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
riding on South Africa's revenue is a nieve way to look at the shambles of the way SARU have negotiated their side of the 2016 Super 18 conference. The Australian side is a clean 5+5 split with two settled conferences who are both strongly pivoting towards Japan. Test matches played in Japan. NZ maori playing in Japan this year. None of that is lost on people who can see with their eyes open. How good is your buckets of revenue if you cannot hold your top players? By pivoting to Japan NZ and AUS can easily double their revenue with a 5+5+5 Supet Rugby including 4 Japanese teams. So next time you puff out your chest at the oodles of revenues just think about all the players South Africa will Keep on losing and the very stong position NZ and Australia are building. Disingenuous? You are openly stating many times you want to scrap Super Rugby completely so your feind desire for better info is not honest.