News24

SARU denies boycott reports

2012-02-12 17:00

Cape Town - South Africa’s five Super Rugby franchises have not threatened to boycott the competition, the South African Rugby Union (SARU) confirmed on Sunday.

A newspaper report alleged that the boycott threat was a part of a letter from the five franchises to SARU president, Oregan Hoskins.

“No threat of a boycott was made,” said Jurie Roux, CEO of SARU. “But the franchises have made it plain that the only option to them is the expansion of Vodacom Super Rugby.

“They also pledged their support for the Kings’ inclusion in 2013 as well as for SARU’s efforts to persuade SANZAR to include a sixth South African franchise.”

The letter reads:

“After lengthy discussions between the franchises, we unanimously decided that it is imperative:

•    That such inclusion will benefit South African rugby in general;
•    That none of the existing franchises shall be prejudiced by such inclusion in any way whatsoever;
•    That 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;
•    That SARU as custodian of the South African leg of the tournament will ensure that the Kings are included without prejudice to any of the existing franchises.

“The existing franchises will endeavour to provide all necessary assistance and support to SARU in its negotiations with SANZAR to ensure the inclusion of six South African franchises in 2013 onwards.”

Roux said that SARU would continue discussions with its SANZAR partners around participation in the 2013 tournament.

A decision on the mechanism by which South Africa’s entrants in Super Rugby in 2013 would be identified was postponed in January. A special General Council meeting delayed the decision until the Annual General Meeting of SARU on March 31 to allow time for further discussions with SANZAR.
 

Sport24

Comments
  • tonybighit - 2012-02-12 17:27

    When will politics not be an issue in sport? Yes I'd love to see the Kings playing, but atleast let them qualify properly as they did in the early days of SuperRugby where the top 4 currie cup unions were included in Super Rugby.

      Marius - 2012-02-12 18:08

      The Cheetahs got their franchise handed to them on a plate after their complaints that the Lions treated them as junior partners in the Cats partnership and claiming the bulk of the revenue for the Lions and made sure that Bloem also hardly hosted any Cats home games. At least the Cats were competitive as a joint franchise, but once the 2 sides split up, neither one has ever been effective again in Super Rugby.

      Thomas - 2012-02-12 22:15

      Marius! The Cheetahs were the next obvious choice, no matter how you look at it the Kings don't qualify in any way or form!!!

      Thomas - 2012-02-12 23:49

      SA have top Universities and Schools, but it looks like education doesn't work in Africa!! OR thinking isn't one of SARUs strong points!!!

  • Jock - 2012-02-12 18:09

    '...the franchises have made it plain that the only option to them is the expansion of Vodacom Super Rugby' Uh - Jurie that is a threat. It doesn't get more plain than that. No wonder the Australasians run circles round SARU every year when contracts, rule changes, etc are discussed and negotiated. We travel the most and agree to rule changes that don't suit our style of play. We don't even recognise a threat when it hits us between the eyes - from our own people! No wonder they laugh at us Japies!

      robert.m.sylvester - 2012-02-12 19:17

      SARU are useless - Here they go again. Making unkeepable promises and telling lies to Easten Province. I think they should be sued in their personal capacity for incompetance and incitement.

      Thomas - 2012-02-12 22:23

      Jock, they will only realise this when SANZAR's Auss and NZ partners turn down their third world fixit it solutions!!! If they had anything between their ears they would realise they shouldn't have attempted this until the Kings were competitive!!!

  • Glenn - 2012-02-12 18:40

    The Kings dont deserve to play in the Super Rugby Competition. They need to prove themselves as a rugby province, worthy of playing in such a prestige competition. Let them play in the Curry Cup Premier Division and if they can hold thier own and end up at least in sixth place, then maybe give them a chance. SARU is forcing the issue of the Kings playing Super Rugby.

  • Jan - 2012-02-12 18:41

    They sound like their ruling party masters: Deny deny deny!

  • Walter - 2012-02-12 18:48

    It is imperative that the "Super" concept expands to include a PE based side. It is also the ideal opprtunity to split the "Super" competition in two groups competing - with the top enders then challenging each other in the playoffs. We need less rugby on that level and we need to retain the importance of the domestic competion - read Currie Cup. Then - the split will also allow the unavoidable adition of two teams from South America in hopefull 2014. Giving us 18 teams with two groups of 9. That will assist any effort to re-introduce 3 match Test series. The division of teams in the two groups are then purely done on position of the previous year. Fair and simple. Rules of thumb: Keep your Domestic competition healthy and highly competitive. Keep the Super competition interesting without an overload. Allow for Test Tours of 3 Matches. Both in mid year and end of the year. Keep the Tri Nations to two games only. Tests between the All Blacks and Boks are not that important and exceptional as it used to be. SANZAR has taken that xtra bit of "Special" off it. We need to see top players playing in the top games. Not squad systems please. Rugby World Cup is special because it comes once in four years only. Just like the Olympics.

      Thomas - 2012-02-12 22:34

      Walter! It is not imperative that the Kings be included!! Your plan for the "Super" compitition is a good one, but with a team that is worthy of their place. Not a team that is a travelling "Max Bonus Points" wherever they go!!! If the Kings are supposed to be representative of the province, then they will battle to keep the score below seventy in nearly all their games!!!!

  • Anton - 2012-02-12 19:29

    Trust the Rappport to (not) get it right!

  • Steph - 2012-02-12 19:34

    It seems politics will for the foreseeable future be a thorn in the Sporting World's side. Just look at the new Tswane Sport Council that wants to change the BLUE Bulls colours! What will they be called then. It's getting ridiculous.

      Bootman - 2012-02-12 20:26

      Steph it's easy. Let the Bulls play in the colours of the ANC. Change their emblem to the cockroach and call them the Rainbow Roaches. Come on TSC.......you can do it!!!

  • 1Remnant - 2012-02-13 06:33

    Bwahaha saru is running scared.......stuff saru and start a new independent, honest and unbiased rugby union that choose players on merit not race! One that actually cares about promoting fairness on and off the field. It's time that these anc moegoes get taught a lesson

  • Brevan - 2012-02-13 10:57

    I don't know when they lost the Spears part, but the Team that will be added is not the EP Kings, it happens to be the Southern Kings. A regional team that includes SWD, Border and EP. It would probably be the only genuine regional franchise as opposed to a big union that sometimes utilize players from the smaller unions in the region. I think they've been promised entry for a long time now and they are due it. So SARU should push for the 16th team other there should be a condition that the bottom places SA team need to win at east 35% of their games and not end in the bottom 4 teams. otherwise they either drop out for next year or they go into a 3 match playoff against the SK?

  • dannybrett.morgan - 2012-02-13 21:18

    to include the EP kings should happen later than next year, super rugby is a differrent ball game to local. maybe a qualifying process should be introduced if more franchises want to be included, it would make for better rugby all round.

  • pages:
  • 1