SA rugby hit back at O'Neill

[mudskipper]

By DUNCAN JOHNSTONE - Rugbyheaven Last updated 07:40 13/05/2009


South African boss Oregan Hoskins has called for an end to Sanzar's public fighting as the three partners get set for another round of talks over the future of Super Rugby.

The past few weeks have been marred by some airing of dirty laundry in the messy affair as New Zealand, South Africa and Australia try to find a way forward for the Super 14.

They have to provide their broadcast partners News Ltd with their proposal beyond 2010 by the end of next month.

South Africa is at loggerheads with the trans-Tasman neighbours over the starting date of an expanded tournament.

That has prompted Australia and New Zealand to consider going it alone and South Africa has been linked to a move north.

Australian boss John O'Neill inflamed the situation on Monday when he suggested South Africa were "bluffing" over their future and he doubted they had an alternative to Super rugby.

"As chairman of Sanzar I wish to call on all parties not to make public statements. It's unbecoming and breaching protocol," Hoskins told South Africa's 24.com website.

"We are supposed to discuss issues at meetings. It complicates the partnership when someone makes statements in the media. We can issue joint statements."

Hoskins will chair this week's crucial meeting between the three countries as they try to break the deadlock.

"We have a meeting now where we can talk straight and we'll have to find a solution, even if it takes some time."

But he still maintains his country is they key player in the three-way alliance that needs unanimous decisions over any changes.

"Australia and New Zealand cannot do without South Africa. We have the biggest market and the most lucrative TV component. We add a lot of value," Hoskins said.

He put the problems in a nutshell with this summary: "South Africa believes Super rugby should start in mid-February. Australia and New Zealand want it to start early in March. They also want Super rugby to be played at the time of the June test window. We are against that. Those are the issues we should be focusing on."

The annual Tri-Nations test tournament between the three countries is not threatened by the current impasse.

But clearly tensions are rising and the outspoken O'Neill added fuel to the fire when he declared: "From all the enquiries we've made, we believe there isn't an exit for them in the north.

"What has happened is Australia and New Zealand, out of pure frustration, have worked on a trans-Tasman competition which does work, with five or six teams from Australia and five or six from New Zealand.

"It's a Super 10 or Super 12, played over two rounds, and bringing in Japan in a couple of years' time. It's a pretty elegant solution.

"The roles have changed in that we have a plan B and I'm not sure South Africa do.

"On a couple of occasions we thought we'd had an agreement but the South Africans have changed their minds. They're very unpredictable.

"We don't want South Africa to drop out of Super rugby, we want them to stay in. But the conditions they're attaching to their participation are in our view unreasonable."


http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/2...ack-at-O-Neill

[travelling_gerry]

COMMENT: Bret Harris | May 13, 2009
Article from: The Australian

IT'S time for SANZAR's administrators to start acting their age and not their shoe size. With the SANZAR negotiations balanced on a knife's edge, the three participating nations - Australia, New Zealand and South Africa -- must quit playing their childish game of blind man's bluff and reach a sensible compromise.

All three partners say they are committed to preserving the SANZAR venture, which has underpinned professional rugby in the southern hemisphere since the game went open in 1995.

There is a very good reason for this: it's the best option for all of them.

Yet they have managed to reach an impasse over several issues, including the timing of the season and the location of a 15th Super franchise.

As a result of the stalemate, Australia and New Zealand have threatened to break away from SANZAR and set up a trans-Tasman competition and South Africa is exploring the option of playing in the Magners League in Britain.

ARU chief executive John O'Neill has launched yet another attack on the South Africans by accusing them of bluffing. But who's kidding who? If the trans-Tasman competition was a better option than Super rugby, it would already be up and running.

O'Neill is a smart man. It took him about five minutes after becoming CEO of Football Federation Australia to figure out that the Socceroos' future lay in Asia rather than Oceania.

Do you really think it has taken O'Neill 14 years to come to the realisation that a trans-Tasman competition is better value than Super rugby?

The reality is that a trans-Tasman competition would be no match for Super rugby in the commercial stakes because South Africa is the biggest market for rugby with the most lucrative TV component.

The value of South Africa's broadcast deal is 50 to 60 per cent of the SANZAR pie, with Australia having the smallest slice. O'Neill betrayed this fact when he rubbished the idea of putting forward rival proposals to broadcaster News Limited by the June 30 deadline.

O'Neill himself had suggested a month or so ago putting forward rival proposals for the competing locations for the 15th team -- Australia or South Africa -- to News Ltd for evaluation.

Why is this any different?

The only reason the idea is ridiculous now is because a trans-Tasman competition would command less in broadcasting fees than a Super competition involving South Africa.

Australian and New Zealand strategists who pushed the trans-Tasman concept may have been under the delusion that the lucrative South African market would be interested in their product. Think again.

South Africa has the gold, which is why it has always been in the strongest bargaining position around the SANZAR table.

If Australia and New Zealand derived less income from a trans-Tasman venture, it would have potentially far-reaching ramifications if it meant the two countries were even less competitive in the international marketplace for players.

It would drive more Australian and New Zealand players to Europe and Japan at the very time more depth is needed to fill the rosters in an expanded competition. More importantly, they would risk losing star players.

Australia and New Zealand have criticised South Africa for changing their position during the negotiations on the expansion of Super rugby, but they have been constant on one issue: they will not accept any negative impact on their domestic provincial competition, the Currie Cup.

The Anzac allies have tried to coerce South Africa to concede ground on the Currie Cup, but the South Africans have not, and will not, budge.

The Currie Cup has its own lucrative broadcasting deal and the final of the competition was the most watched sporting event in South Africa last year.

The South Africans are not going to sacrifice the Currie Cup so that Australia and New Zealand can place themselves in a better position to compete with rugby league in the Australasian market.

O'Neill believes this is typical of South Africa's hardline approach to business and sport, taking the negotiations to the brink.

The biggest fear in South Africa is that Australia and New Zealand will not back down on their demands for a late kick-off to the season and changes to the June Test window because they do not want to lose face.

New Zealand commentators have accused the NZRU of being "gutless" and blindly following O'Neill.

If it comes to the crunch, will the ARU be able to rely on New Zealand support for a breakaway venture?

As I wrote in these pages several weeks ago, New Zealand support for the trans-Tasman option is only lukewarm because of the adverse impact it would have on the National Provincial Competition, which is known as the Air New Zealand Cup.

The NZRU management would be happy to dump the NPC because it is a financial drain on the union, but the board will continue to support the competition for political reasons.

The chairmen of New Zealand's 26 provincial unions decide who goes on -- and more importantly who comes off -- the NZRU board.

History shows that every time the NZRU management has attempted to scale back the NPC, the board has resisted it.

If all three partners are truly committed to SANZAR, surely they can find a way to reach a compromise deal.

The most logical solution is for SANZAR to award the 15th Super franchise to Australia and for Australia and New Zealand to accept a February kick-off to an expanded competition that will not adversely affect the Currie Cup.

But with tensions rising between the partners, as evidenced by bickering between O'Neill and SA Rugby president Oregan Hoskins, the question is, have they already gone too far in their game of bluff?

If the SANZAR bosses cannot work it out at their meeting in Dublin this week, the issue should immediately go to mediation so that someone else can do it for them.

Belligerence and brinkmanship will not get it done.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...015651,00.html

[mudskipper]

Deplorable use of the SANZAR Chairmanship…. This guy, Chairman of SANZAR Oregon Hoskins is a foolish schemer. He begins his media statement as the impartial Chairman calling for all public statements to be shutdown, calling for solidarity and calm, then cuts into the argument pressing for the South African cause… He is clearly not up to the post he holds. We’re not that dull mate...

This is an escalated problem from a South African is holding the SANZAR Chair and is also why we didn’t get a 6 team semis series… which was the beginning of the SANZAR split last year…

I would encourage O’Neill and his NZ counterpart to take these guys apart in Dunlin SANZAR conference this/next week. As Super Rugby fans we have had enough of the South African brinkmanship holding back the game in the Southern Hemisphere…. Super Rugby can’t compete against other codes with only half a season worth of games… Times up get along or move on SA….