The next dramatic chapter in the protracted Super Rugby participation saga will be written in Johannesburg on Thursday.
Golden Lions Rugby Union President Kevin de Klerk said that he will meet up with the South African Rugby Union hierarchy on Thursday. This follows the SARU decision last week to axe the Lions and replace them with the Southern Kings in 2013.
rugb365
The fall-out from the vote at last week’s General Council meeting – which went 23-6 in favour of the Kings, with only the Bulls and Sharks supporting the Lions – may cause a few aftershocks in the weeks to come.
The Lions boss, De Klerk, has made his displeasure with the outcome very clear.
But he dismissed the notion that they are on the brink of disaster – a perception heightened with confirmation that they lost the arbitration case against their Super Rugby partners.
“We are certainly not in sackcloth and ashes, neither bankrupt,” an agitated De Klerk told this website.
“I am in a meeting tomorrow with the South African Rugby Union, to determine how this all transpired and what measures were put in place to absorb some of the shock [of the Lions’ axing from Super Rugby],” he said.
De Klerk added that he wants to know how SARU plan to take this forward.
“The Lions must be supported to remain a power in SA rugby,” the Lions boss said, adding that he is not convinced the Kings will make the cut in 2013.
“We must avoid a situation where you lose two unions out of these structures,” he said, adding: “If we have just four [strong] unions, where will we end up in SA Rugby.
“We have to box very clever in this regard, we have to tread very carefully.
“That is why we are going to talk to SARU about the way forward.”
De Klerk was originally scheduled to host a media briefing in Johannesburg on Tuesday, but decided to call it off until after his talks with SARU.
He wants to know what the much talked about “assistance” is that SARU promised at their media briefing last week.
De Klerk also thanks the two unions that did support the Lions last week – the Bulls and Sharks.
“They supported us very strongly, but I will never involve them in this fight of ours with SARU … just because we are going to suffer losses,” he said.
“From a moral point of view we have enormous appreciation for their support and we will never forget that [support].
“I have enormous respect for Bryan van Zyl [Sharks CEO] for the manner in which he picked that union [Natal] up and made it the success what it is today, after decades of languishing in the lower leagues.”
But let us not forget HOW the Sharks got back into the top echelon of the CC.
In the 1980’s they (the Sharks COULD NOT BEAT EITHER Eastern TVL or the NOFS.
Eventually SARFU (or whatever they were at that stage) decided that ALL of the 6 “Test Unions” needed to play in the top tier of SA Rugby in order to promote the standards across the board. The CC was expanded, and Natal / Sharks never looked back.
HENCE, the governing body of SA Rugby MADE A PLAN TO ACCOMODATE ALL PARTIES.
Why can’t they now????????
1 @ Scrumdown:
First thing SARU MUST do is to distribute the Super Rugby Financial pie in 6 equal slices, giving the Lions one of these six portions, with no deductions.
Second thing SARU MUST do is to create an immediate ancillary Competition for the Lions to participate in, in 2013.. envolving quality International sides.
Third thing SARU MUST do is to just stop buggering around and put South Africa’s rugby interests in general first, above their own individual interests and egos… fat chance….
@ grootblouBokJan:
What if by some miracle, the Lions fail to gain readmission at the playoffs next year?
Why should SARU support a Union that is basically bankrupt and incapable of supporting itself I don’t know.
We have enough artificially contrived circumstances in SA these days, we don’t need any more.
@ BobbejanklimdiebergStormersboySpringbokJan:
Its not about supporting a Union in the mess the Lions are in, but its about having the “test” unions as the shop window for SA Rugby. Its about the 3rd highest winner of the CC, and the 2nd highest Super Rugby winner of SA in top tier rugby. Would NZ allow a team like the Blues to be kicked out of Super Rugby? I don’t think so. Auckland is the capital of NZ,whereas JHB is the financial capital of SA. Its about putting a proper plan in place to accomodate all 6 teams in Super Rugby. SARU has made a bigger mess up of this situation than Lions have of their affairs.
@ LionJan4ever:
I can understand how you may think this way but to be honest, when WP was relegated for a year none of the other participating unions offered to share the pot with them.
Just saying. It happens.
That is not to take away from the appalling job that SARU have done in dealing with this issue in the first place. The issue should never have come up until the expansion of the competition was up for debate.
3 @ BobbejanklimdiebergStormersboySpringbokJan:
I think the mistake you make here in your reasoning is confusing the Lions Super Rugby Franchise with the Golden Lions Rugby Union.
There are only 6 Super Rugby Franchises in SA, whereas there are 14 Rugby Unions in SA (all devided into the 6 Super Rugby Franchises).
Years ago when WP had to sit out of Super Rugby, the top PROVINCIAL sides took part in the much smaller Super Rugby Competition, but now there are FRANCHISES…. and it revolves around keeping all 6 Franchises alive and sustainable.
So, until 2015… there will still be 6 SA Super Rugby Franchises, of which 5 will take part in Super Rugby and 1 will sit out for the particular year due to the relegation system now in place.
Whether the Lions Super Rugby Franchise therefore stays relegated or not, therefor does not matter at all, it’s immaterial, they will still be one of the 6 existing SA Super Rugby Franchises.
After the current SANZAR deal finishes, SARU would be doff to sign any new deal in SANZAR that does not include all 6 SA Super Rugby Franchises playing and nobody sitting out (and they all have to be kept ready and strong till then)… so we’re talking about a couple of years bridging AND at the same time assisting a Union (Golden Lions) – which forms the backbone of this 6th SA Super Rugby Franchise, and with far more than a 100 years of rich history – from going down the tubes completely.
Very, very nearly half of SA’s total population resides in and certainly more than half of South Africa’s total economy is situated in or controlled from and by Gauteng… so it’s only right that Gauteng keeps at least 2 of the 6 SA Super Rugby Franchises… in fact it would have been more apt if Gauteng had half of the SA Super Rugby Franchises… if you play a numbers game with capital and population. Of course playing the numbers game discounts the geographical distances problem or aspect and the numbers game is not the only consideration and cannot be played without considering geographical location and distances.
So, am I trying to save the Lions Super Rugby Franchise from vanishing? Yes, definately so.
Am I saying there should be a fair and sensible dispensation? Yes, for freegin sure there should be.
Am I saying SARU should for once take responsible charge? Yes, yes, yes!
Am I trying to save the Golden Lions Rugby Union in the process? Yes, without a doubt.
ek kon sweer ek het nou die dag op tv n geseelde ballot box gesien
@ grootblouBokJan:
This is all good and well, BUT the Lions Super Rugby team has not shown itself to be sustainable over the past years. Now its fine saying that the economic wealth and such is in Gauteng, but that wealth is hardly supporting the Lions, be it with Bums in seats OR viewer interest (I have the full stats from repucom, busy doing a project for them on viewer stats and revenue and such at the moment).
So whilst the money is there its not following the Lions at Super Rugby level at the moment (for various reasons)so that dilutes your argument in my eyes substantially.
Do I think the Kings or whatever they call themselves these days deserve to be there? Hell No. Not even close. My opinion of the Cheeky Watson situation will most likely get me banned off this site for excessive use of foul language.
But then I’m of the opinion that the Super Rugby comp needs to be shrunk, not expanded. It should be the Heinecken Cup to the Premiership, not both competitions combined. Our players will last longer and our local Rugby would benefit with an expanded CC to boot, giving a wider range of players exposure at the right levels rather than being between the same teams that effectively play Super Rugby (therefore the same old games just played again).
I would say a max of 3 teams in a end of season competition with the CC being the decider of who gets to go.
I know that this wont suit SANZAR and there for wont happen but I honestly think its for the better of SA Rugby that we play less Super Rugby rather than more.
The Kings be damned. let them fight it out in a 10 team CC for the right to be one of the top 3 teams to play Super Rugby in my opinion.
GLRU needs to get its act together and start to deserve to be there. Like everyone else.
7 @ smal jan planne:
Smallies,
Is jy nog steeds besig met die geheime stemmingsgedagte? Hehehe
In so ‘n vergadering van SA Rugby (met 2 stemme deur elke Unie plus Oragan Hoskins se 1 stem (29 stemme), is daar mos ‘n lewendige debat voor ‘n stemmery plaasvind, dis hoe dit werk… so natuurlik sal die Lions weet wie het namens hulle gedurende die debat-fase betoog vir behoud van die Lions.
Netso praat hierdie ouens mos maar onderling met mekaar en weet Kevin de Klerk PRESIES wie het vir hulle gestem, maak nie saak of die ou stembriefietjie in ‘n toe boks gegooi is nie.
Moenie vir my sê jy dink nie ook die Bulls en die Sharks het nie agterna vir ou Kevin kom sê, Jammer boet dat julle verloor het, maar ons HET vir julle gestem.
Mens weet mos wie is in jou kamp en wie nie…. net soos ek weet Brenden Nel van SuperSport is ‘n Bulls ondersteuner, JJ Harmse wat by Media24 was en nou vir SARU werk is ‘n Bull (hy hou van Griekwas ook), net soos ek weet Michael Mentz is ‘n Leeuondersteuner, Louis de Villiers is ‘n Stormers ondersteuner… en hoe ek weet Malema is ‘n swaap!
en ek sal daarby bly tot dit bewys word, die tjarks is so tweegat dat hulle by die leeus sal gaan kruip net om gesig te koop,die punt is nie jy of ek of kdk het regtig gesien wie vir hulle geatem het nie ,soos ek dit sien dink ek eerder die pumas luiperds en nog n groot unie het vir hulle gestem,ek meen hoekom sal hulle super rugby partners teen hulle stem
8 @ BobbejanklimdiebergStormersboySpringbokJan:
I also think the Super 14 was as big as it should ever have gone, in fact Super 12 might even be more preferable for me.
… but you and me both know it won’t happen that they size down again, because it does not suit the money making side of things and TV broadcasting rights and shit like that. For those werfetters it’s about money, not about the well-being of Rugby or Rugby in SA…
I am seriously miffed that the Currie Cup has lost it’s value, from the once proud and premium competition it used to be… to now being the experimental stage and preparation tool for the next year’s Super Rugby competition.
By the way… I need to talk to you about how exactly TV viewership figures are calculated / measured…. we’ve had questions here on how it is measured. Care to elaborate or send me a mail with exactly how it is done… the methodology? Tell me how Repucom measures… is it by means of “Steekproef”, or can they measure how many people have their TV’s on a certain channel and where they are situated?
I am genuinely interested in that measurement… I know how the Newspaper Industry does their “Amps” and circulation measurements and how it is vetted…
10 @ smal jan planne:
Volgende keer as ek vir Barend van Graan sien.. belowe ek jou ek sal hom persoonlik daaroor uitvra….
Maar ek dink jy gryp na wind….
@ grootblouBokJan:
As of hy jou regtig gaan se rugby poletiek is nog erger as party poletiek,maar ek sal vir oom leslie ook vra as ek hom sien,en ek kan jou belowe hulle antwoorde gaan die selle wees
13 @ smal jan planne:
Ag wat… op die einde maak dit nie juis saak nie… die stemming was 23 teen 6.. en dis ‘n feit.
Ek hou net nie van iemand in die rug skiet, soos gedoen is op daai vergadering en stemming nie…. net so min as wat ek van vals mense hou of hulle enigsins kan uithou.
Ou Barend van Graan sal my onbeskaamd die waarheid vertel… dis hoe hy is. Hy sal nie skuil of terughou nie.
Lets all face facts. SARU are spineless twats.
SA is by FAR the biggest money spinner in SANZAR, both by TV audiences as well as bums on seats, but SARU are too chicken shit scared to use this (VERY WELL KNOWN)faxt to their advantage during any sort of negotiations.
They (SARU) allow the Aussies to run rough shod over them and dictate the shape of the future competitions, finance arrangements etc. NZ basically follow the Ausmob through a misguided ANZAC loyalty, and SA get shafted, with Hoskins, and of late Roux just meekly bending over and providing the vaseline.
As for the Lions, there are a number of very well off businessmen in JHB who have been speaking about gettting involved for the last 3-4 years. The dynamics of the issue are VERY complicated though, and of course the GUMA debacle has made many people very vary.
I can’t see the majority of them getting involved in ANY way until the massive grey area between the amateur structures and the professional structures get sorted out.
For example, Kevin de Klerk as President is in an honoury position WITHOUT RENUMERATION.
Consider that when we persuaded him to run as President, something that could only happen after the Chairman’s Council had passed a special resolution to amend the GLRU constitution, he basically walked away from a VERY successful business, leaving it to his son to run,and thereafter basically put in 16 hour days for months on end to try to get things going in the right direction. We can therefore assume that at least KdK is VERY committed to picking the Lions up, despite a number of glaring errors in his management style and a number of almost junior errors in decisions that have had a detrimental impact on the Union as a whole.
That he really hasn’t succeeded is a fact that can also to some degree be blamed on some VERY disruptive elements that he inherited and only recently managed to get rid of, and a number of the Exco’ who appear to be intent on holding their positions for the privelidge only of a seat in the Presidential Box on match day, and as little work as possible.
The Lions need an Integrated Management Plan with clearly defined and attainable goals for ALL emplyees, with regular assesments against those goals, and decisive action being taken against those that underperform. AND BELIEVE ME, I’M NOT SPEAKING ONLY ABOUT PLAYERS AND COACHES HERE.
I think the bottom line is that the Lions need to become a PROFESSIONAL body in order to improve their situation. Nothing more, nothing less!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ grootblouBokJan:The current Satellite decoders (and the newer terrestrial decoders) have technology built into them that allows the broadcaster to determine exactly which channel is on at any given time.
I’m not certain if this is how they report, I will confirm but the viewership numbers are way to specific to suggest a ‘steekproef’ in my opinion, but i’ll ask them to make sure.
i do know that ‘steekproewe’ are still used, with specific technology installed on selected viewers hardware to measure the other channels, that are not encoded as multichoice is.
This also begs a few questions, such as what if your channel is on 201 at the time of the game but your TV is off and you are not there, will it still record that as a valid ‘view’ even though you weren’t actually watching it and how do they determine how many are viewing off 1 decoder (at the Sports Cafe for example) or does this count as 1 viewer.
Ill have to get back to you on the specifics, ill drop you a mail. I’m working more on analyzing the data itself, not questioning the source as it were, the results will probably be posted on News 24 by Tank Lanning once I’m done with it. I’m making pretty heavy weather of it to be honest, just been majorly snowed under but I need to wrap it up or it will lose its relevance.
16 @ BobbejanklimdiebergStormersboySpringbokJan:
Thanks… yes please find out and send us a mail.
I know they measure all sorts of things, like LSM Income groups, Geographical Location….. ect
All those stats are used in Marketing and Advertising circles and affects rates charged during peak and non-peak hours and it affects a lot of other things too.
…. in other words it’s not only about how many, but it seeks to find a typical profile of the viewer, so that it can be used for commercial value and purposes… so that they can say THAT is your target market and THAT is your exposure and THAT is the Income Group you are targeting… ect
But at the end of the day, measurements like these have to be scientifically accurate to hold any water and credibility.
@ grootblouBokJan:
Correct. In discussing the type of analysis that is being done the guys from repucom were quick to point out that 1 viewer is not necessarily as valuable as another in advertising (and therefore revenue) terms. So it would be over simplistic to say that in the pool games in total you had, say, 60% of the viewers from sa, 25% from new zealand and 155 from Aus and therefore the same proportions should be used to apply relative value.
Time zones, prime time etc vs others will come into play, all that sort of thing. Anyway I’ll let you know what I come up with.
18 @ BobbejanklimdiebergStormersboySpringbokJan:
Yip, a WHOLE CLASSROOM full of toddlers watching a washing powder advert on kiddies TV is not nowhere nearly as valuable as ONE teacher (mother) who needs to still go do her monthly shopping….
One needs to reach those who WANT your products and who CAN AFFORD it at the time…
Talking about toddlers…. South Africa should have gotten much more of the SANZAR pie than those toddlers of New Zealand and Australia…. hehehe
@ grootblouBokJan:
Haha as much as i love to rag on SARU in this instance I disagree with you as far as the financial split is concerned.
The reason i say this is that it is easy to confuse who pays for a service/product and who earns the service or creates the product.
In this scenario it is clear that Multichoice provide the overwhelming majority of viewers. Even though one cannot dispute this the numbers must be adjusted for relative price, i.e. the cost of viewership in each 3 instances must be adjusted to a common base. This is hard as the games in SA ( I cannot speak for the other 2) are not on specific pay per view but part of the DSTV and Mnet package.
Even with that taken into account I think we will agree that we pay the Lions share (scuse the pun) of the revenue.
At least Multichoice does.
This must be separated however from who EARNS the money, ie. the rugby players and by extension their respective unions.
There are 5 teams from each union/Sanzar partner and therefor the money is split 3 equal ways. I happen to think that this is correct.
Where I do take issue on a constant basis is the inability/unwillingness of SARU to use the fact that we PAY the majority of the revenue to our advantage when it comes to the negotiations. We should not be treated like the junior partners that we seem to be but rather the one with the “managing” vote, so to speak, and even a right of veto due to our financial clout.
Having said that we have received many favorable concession, like TV viewing times etc (we always watch the games in daytime whilst the other 2 frequently have to watch the away fixtures at much less convenient times, something that obviously again affects viewership as per above). We also get favorable concessions wrt to Tri nations, us always ending at home etc. So it’s not all doom and gloom.
Still get the strong impression that we get pushed around though.
PS wrt to the Tri series, we never have the last fixture so we can get a break before the CC, something that we specifically negotiated.
20 & 21 @ BobbejanklimdiebergStormersboySpringbokJan:
Hey, wat het jy met Stormersboy gedoen?
Bring die regte Stormersboy terug!
Of… Stormersboy, AS DIT WEL JY IS, het jy gedrink of iets?
Hahaha
@ grootblouBokJan:
😀
Controversial? Maybe, but I had this very argument with Andy Marinos personally and I must admit that he made some good points.
23 @ BobbejanklimdiebergStormersboySpringbokJan:
Ooooo Flok, you’ve got Marinos Disease…. it’s incurable and always fatal.
It was good knowing you, before the madness set in….
I hope Andy Marinos is not a friend or family….. but I’m going to say it anyway…. he was caught in a Barble Fishing Competition…..
Haha no, but he is a good friend of a family member and I see him from time to time.
He seems nice enough, and has the air of someone who has rugby’s interests at heart.
I know he comes under some fire on most websites, but in many cases the blame is misplaced. he did do the legwork in the negotiations for sure, but he did not have his own mandate. That came from SARU, not him. And you know where the blame should lie in that case.
Just saying.
BobbejanklimdiebergStormersboySpringbokJan wrote:
Stem saam, as SA kan bykom moet hulle soos NZ die 14 Unies laat tender vir die 5 franchises(ek persoonlik sou van vier gehou het) Ek glo die hele Super deelname moet geherstruktueer word. Ja ek sal haat as my Bulle en se maar die Leeus moet kombineer maar kom ons se maar eerlik as die span n steeknaam moet kry en moet deel sal ek met graagte die nuwe span ondersteun(solank hulle net nie in pienk spee)
grootblouBokJan wrote:
Ek dink dat die stemmming het nie soseer gegaan oor TEEN die Leeus stem nie maar oor jou WOORD hou. Ons almal weet hierdie ding moes op n spits gedryf word, drie jaar of meer terug is daar al besluit die Oos Kaap moet n plek kry. Die stemming het vir my gegaan oor daai belofte, dit was n kwessie van jou WOORD hou. Ek voel ook soos iemand wat dood in die familie het met die Leeus wat uit is. Maar dit kon net sowel my Bul span gewees het. Ek glo BAIE het gedink dit sou die Bulle wees die jaar na al die uitredes en die Leeus se puik sukses met die wen van die CB.
Man ek gaan die banter met die struggling Leeu supporters mis. Ek het mos nou nie n saak om met die Kings te spot nie, maar my Leeu familie en vriende is nou sommer anti rugby praat en kyk, ek mis van julle al klaar.
@ BobbejanklimdiebergStormersboySpringbokJan:
Morning to you there in the ‘Ville’.
Appropos our little chat yesterday about Bellville RC management, check todays ‘Burger’.
Theo Roodman talks about his retirement, Ronnie Masson and Butch Lochner and the old days of WP rugby.
I often wondered why Uncle Butch regarded himself as ‘Noord Transvaler’; in Roodman’s account of a discussion he had with Uncle Butch (convener of the Springbok selection committee at that time)) he also mentions this in passing (where Butch said, “…..JULLE [WP] gaan ons more wen”, when they were discussing the 1988 Currie Cup final.
Strange that, he was a ‘Weskusklong’, spoke with a very strong Boland accent (‘bggei’) like Tommie Loubscher (they were from the same hometown, CFG), and he made his Springbok debute whilst playing for WP. Must be something from his military days in Pretoria that turned him ‘from disa to daisy’ (I think Butch retired as a colonel in the SADF, not sure…)
Anyway, it just struck me as a coincidence that you and I were talking about these old WP boys (Ronnie and Butch) only yesterday.
(***Read what Roodman says about the days when Tiaan and the boys used to get a secret little envelope with R100 ‘under the table’ to cover their costs. I think Michael du Plessis was the first professional player in SA, when Louis Luyt sponsored his move to Tvl; what a ‘crisis’ that was for the ‘amateur old boys rugby club’….Michael had pay back the airfare.)
@ Piet-Springbok-Jan:
Thanks Piet, Ill go check it out. My mom would probably also get a lick out of it.
@ Piet-Springbok-Jan:
“Michael HAD to pay back….”
(Eishh, ek raak nou lekker gatvol om alles oor en oor te edit, nuwe flippin laptop skryf sommer sy eie storie, spring rond, laat woorde uit…)
Users Online
Total 92 users including 0 member, 92 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,455,377 Page Impressions
_