New Zealand Rugby is coming under increasing fire from its Sanzaar partners over the unilateral move to set up a new franchise competition, with legal action even being mooted by South Africa.
The Kiwis sent tremors through southern hemisphere rugby last week when announcing plans for an 8-10 team competition based around a core of the five NZ Super Rugby franchises, effectively dismantling the 25-year Sanzaar model.
It sought expressions of interest from Australia to enter up to four teams while provision has also been made for a Pasifika team.
Australian media reports suggest early trans-Tasman talks had fallen flat, heightening the possibility of Rugby Australia establishing its own competition from 2021.
RA chairman Hamish McLennan said his chief executive Rob Clarke had described negotiations with NZR as “expressions of insolence” and told The Australian the Kiwis had tried to dictate terms.
McLennan said NZR boss Mark Robinson had made it clear he doesn’t want all five Super Rugby AU teams in the competition – something the Australians say is imperative.
Waratahs chairman Roger Davis followed up with a lashing of NZR for what he described as “appalling” behaviour in sounding out Super Rugby teams directly for their interest, circumventing RA officials.
“We’re not going to split or destroy the code by dumping two or three sides. It would do irreparable damage to the game here,” Davis told the Sydney Morning Herald.
NZR took another blow from SA Rugby chief executive Jurie Roux, who said binding Sanzaar agreements had been shunned.
“If anybody kicked anyone out of Super Rugby, it was New Zealand kicking themselves out,” Roux told a media conference.
“New Zealand has every right to determine their future but in terms of Sanzaar and the joint venture agreement, there is a very legal agreement in place and you’ve got to act within that legal agreement.
“The unbundling of Super Rugby can only be a Sanzaar executive decision. Somebody else might make a unilateral decision that forces (a split) but they put themselves at risk of a legal liability by the people who are still part of the joint venture.”
COVID-19’s devastating impact on South Africa meant no rugby had been possible there since March.
SA Rugby is considering an August launch of a domestic competition – similar to the Super Rugby leagues under way in Australia and New Zealand – and Roux remains hopeful the world champion Springboks can play in a Kiwi-hosted Rugby Championship starting in November.
RA is also hopeful of getting New Zealand to agree to two Wallabies-hosted Bledisloe Cup Tests in October before both teams cross the ditch to isolate and then contest the Rugby Championship.
Rich1234
Roar Rookie
Ha ha…..from one rookie to another. Cheers
OtakiCraig
Roar Rookie
Do your research rookie
Yeah, it is certainly interesting, I just wish SARU would be a bit more forthcoming and transparent
Derm
Roar Guru
That's what I was referring to earlier. The original plan according to Erasmus and Roux was to do 4+4 which is why Griquas and Pumas won the tender. And they brought in the cull to reduce the number of professional players with a planned redistribution of quality players around the 8 professional teams. But that hasn't happened and Cheetahs have been plundered and Kings just not good enough. The mid-term review for PRO14 was meant to be this year with the performance of the two teams to be assessed. Covid certainly hasn't helped matters, but the fact that SARU have been left out of the shareholding (FIR have finally been appointed as shareholders), is a pointer to more needs to be delivered in the second half of the Participation Agreement.
Rich1234
Roar Rookie
Agreed but I leave a little space for when independent reports are not so independent.
Rich1234
Roar Rookie
You seem to have a strong view on these officials OC, how and when did they kow-towed from your perspective?
Sluggy
Roar Guru
double post
Sluggy
Roar Guru
Hi OB, if the draftsman has managed to include in the SAANZAR super rugby agreement (probably severable from the RC parts of the agreement at this point) a force majeure clause so cleverly settled that it could actually engineer a suspension of the contract, with its obligations springing back into life once covid-19 is beaten, s/he should get a Nobel prize. I venture to suggest that probably hasn't happened, and the likely law of the contract (UK law? Singapore?) will include the common law doctrine of frustration - the end point of which is termination of the contract for all time.
Sluggy
Roar Guru
@ Jacko – There is no “reverting” to the SAANZAR contract for Super Rugby. If Covid-19 made it impossible for the parties to carry out their obligations, and the contract was frustrated and terminated, it is gone for good.
Sluggy
Roar Guru
I'm not talking about what is best for NZ rugby, or the All Blacks, I am talking about what RA might be doing after it rejects the NZR ultimatum. As for a link, it was in interview comments from Hamish McLennan in one of the major papers, and it is against site policy to be linking other media providers. Google it.
Drew
Roar Rookie
I’m not sure what those four question marks are for. Are you confused with what historic partner means? AR and NZR have had a mutually beneficial relationship for a long time. They have had and continue to have a range of strategic alignment. They have and continue to have an ongoing business/legal partnership and will likely in some capacity for the foreseeable future. NZR also have other historic partnerships with SAR and UAR which I was also referencing in my comment above when I say historic partners. I really don’t see why you are trying to personify two organisation that have worked over decades and try to draw some obscure parallels between individuals and these organisations made up of numerous individuals. I’m also at a loss about your neighbour comment as I’m not sure who above was even using that word/terminology? I get the impression that your generalisation says more about your perception of neighbours in a classic sense than some universal truth of how people interact with those who are geographically close to them, but that is neither here nor there in the context of this discussion.
Drew
Roar Rookie
Jacko, the current SANAAR relationship isn’t a financially symmetrical one as is. This comment makes me think you don’t have much insight to how things currently function and could possibly function in such a partnership. AU also don’t want NZ to supply players but allow players who play for AU SR clubs to still be eligible for All Blacks selection. Honestly from a NZ player perspective this would be a positive as it creates a larger local employment market and may enable those players stuck behind encumbrance to have a chance. I believe there is also discussion of it going the other way, those AU players playing for NZ teams being eligible for the Wallabies. Are there some downsides for NZR, well yes. They may not be willing to lose the tight control they feel they gain with the players being in one of the NZ franchises.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Every single time you are proved wrong (and it happens a lot) all you got is vain attacks on my "neutrality". Your "Kiwis can do no wrong attitude" pretty pathetic. And you still have serious issues with reading comprehension, which is proved on a daily basis here at the Roar.
Fracktobunt
Roar Rookie
Well neither of us are at the negotiating table so we can only go by what has been reported in the press and so far we’ve heard that RA is in talks with Argentina & Japan so I would say yes, RA has started looking at next year’s comp but I suspect you already knew that so I’m not sure why you asked.
Rhys
Roar Rookie
I think more the burden of cutting a team again would cripple Aus rugby jacko. The Force saga was a big blow to rugby here and the NZ offer would likely mean we'd have to cut a team. This would shrink the national footprint and it isn't something that RA can afford to take lightly, especially with the state the game is here at the moment. Interesting re your point though that it costs NZRU $7M per year to administer it's clubs and comps etc. Is that because of the centralised system in place? I have always been an advocate for such a model here in Australia as a means of saving money and preventing duplication between state unions. You're right, the saved money would be a boon for RA but the tradeoff is still potentially crippling imo.
Jacko
Guest
thats why you do independant reports...To remove the emotion from the reality...if you wait for everyone to agree you get nothing done.....ever...
Jacko
Guest
More insults....Thats all you have when your arguements prove to be useless and wrong.....
Jacko
Guest
TBH Mat I am waiting for RAs report as to what they are doing next year and then I hope the 2 get together but has Aus even started looking at next years comp or are they just being angry at NZs report saying what NZ wants and is best for NZ
Jacko
Guest
Historic partner????/ yeah history says Aus will reneg on anything they say in public and cannot be trusted...Neighbour? Most neighbours arnt friends and hardly talk but you are trying to use these words to insinuate some sort of positive relationship...which historically is not a positive relationship...its a relationship based on NZ doing everything to help Aus and Aus returning the favour by lying and deliberate deceiving
Jacko
Guest
Sluggy you hate NZ inviting Aus teams to join their comp but you want Aus to invite other nations to join their comp...And what report have the RA put out? Provide a link please...As you know RA HAVNT done any report or anything else for that matter. and yet you rubbish NZ for doing a whole lot of work to evaluate what would be best for NZ rugby....Its weak...show me the link!!!!!