Richard Ferguson

Still in the dark


Written by Richard Ferguson (Richard Ferguson)

Posted in :EP Kings, Lions, Original Content, Super Rugby on 22 May 2012 at 09:53
Tagged with : , , ,

In further developments in the Southern Kings Super Rugby saga, SARU met on Monday to discuss possibilities and procedures, all very positive with no actual detail of what was discussed released to the public.

SARU CEO Jurie Roux called it a very positive meeting, agreeing on numerous option to put forward at the Annual General Meeting in July, where a final decision will be made.

It looks more and more likely that the lowest team, being the Lions, will make way to accommodate the Kings, with options looked at on how to exactly accommodate the Lions in the Super Rugby 2013. A possible merger with the Cheetahs though, has been ruled out.

In summary, SARU met yet again and still don’t know what to do or how to fulfil their promise to the Kings.



66 Comments

  • I have a horrible feeling that one of the options is the merger of the Sharks and the Kings!!

  • Comment 1, posted at 22.05.12 09:58:46 by Butchie34 Reply
    Author
    Currie Cup player
     
  • @Butchie34 (Comment 1) : and THAT is the reason why we need to pull finger and make the play-offs and go further. Become untouchable. One cannot merge a champion side! :lol:

  • Comment 2, posted at 22.05.12 10:01:38 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    IceTeam captain
     
  • Rich. why do you say a Lions Cheetahs merger has been ruled out? I read an article where, I think it was Roux, said that a merger could be one of the options, but don’t recall anything about a Lions and Cheetahs merger being ruled out.

    And then there is of course the Volksblad article about how it looks increasing more and more likely that it will be the Lions and not the Cheetahs who are eliminated.

  • Comment 3, posted at 22.05.12 10:11:05 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 3) : One of the reasons why I’m worried that they might think a Kings/Sharks merger might work!!

  • Comment 4, posted at 22.05.12 10:14:45 by Butchie34 Reply
    Author
    Currie Cup player
     
  • From a purely operational point of view a Bulls – lions merger makes most sense to me.

    Easy drive down the N1 to get to training for the players living in Jhb, if any Lions players make the team.

    can also rotate home game fixtures between Coca Cola Park and Loftus as both are within easy reach of the fans.

    Wishful thinking maybe :mrgreen:

  • Comment 5, posted at 22.05.12 10:18:02 by jonnow Reply

    jonnowCurrie Cup player
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 3) : I also read (Beeld) that a merger between Lions and Cheetahs are unlikely even in nature :razz:

  • Comment 6, posted at 22.05.12 10:18:35 by JarsonX Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition WinnerCompetition Winner
    JarsonXAssistant coach
     
  • @Butchie34 (Comment 4) : Nobody will merge with the Kings. The Kings will not accept a shared franchise, they will insist on a standalone franchise. There is no need to worry about a Kings Sharks merger.

  • Comment 7, posted at 22.05.12 10:18:41 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 3) :

    I read it while doing research for the article..

    Did you get my mail btw?

  • Comment 8, posted at 22.05.12 10:19:21 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    Richard FergusonCoach
     
  • Switch on the light! :wink:

  • Comment 9, posted at 22.05.12 10:30:15 by JarsonX Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition WinnerCompetition Winner
    JarsonXAssistant coach
     
  • What I`d like to know, if and when the Kings finish bottom of the log with 8 points next year, will they then get relegated again?

  • Comment 10, posted at 22.05.12 10:31:33 by Original Pierre Reply
    Author
    Original PierreSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Original Pierre (Comment 10) : Nope – they would be entrenched for 2 years – I hear they even asking for 3.

    In the previous arrangement with the Spears, the second last team would have been relegated (can’t remember if it was automatic or via a relegation match). Not sure what the idea is know

    Really all the details is still up in the air

  • Comment 11, posted at 22.05.12 10:34:20 by Bokhoring Reply

    BokhoringTeam captain
     
  • @Original Pierre (Comment 10) : As far I know, they will play 2 seasons, getting 8 points in both, and only then will relegation matches be played.

  • Comment 12, posted at 22.05.12 10:34:35 by JarsonX Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition WinnerCompetition Winner
    JarsonXAssistant coach
     
  • @Butchie34 (Comment 1) :

    Well that was the original situation . Sharks and Kings . Till the Sharks bought the Kings out. So the Kings were part of a SR franchise . They sold it and now they are crying about it .. so they demand demand demand ..

    Maybe the Kings should bye out the Lions ?

  • Comment 13, posted at 22.05.12 10:38:37 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • As far as i understand they are only assured one season ?

  • Comment 14, posted at 22.05.12 10:41:03 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Zibbie (Comment 13) : Not exactly correct. EP and Border only sold their game hosting rights to the Sharks when the S12 was still contested by regions.

    Then the game changed with the talk of the Spears in 2006(?). The unions in some cases with partners then bid for franchises. Sharks went alone, and EP/Border/SWD went in as Spears.

  • Comment 15, posted at 22.05.12 10:42:17 by Bokhoring Reply

    BokhoringTeam captain
     
  • @Bokhoring (Comment 15) :

    But thats not very bright … its like resigning from your old job and then complain because you dont have an income . Only resign when you are assured of a new job !!!

  • Comment 16, posted at 22.05.12 10:45:49 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Zibbie (Comment 16) : They obviously hoped they would win the 5th franchise

  • Comment 17, posted at 22.05.12 10:46:44 by Bokhoring Reply

    BokhoringTeam captain
     
  • @Bokhoring (Comment 17) :

    Yes but one needs the back up plan . you cant just live on hope ….

  • Comment 18, posted at 22.05.12 10:58:28 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Zibbie (Comment 18) : Let me rather rephrase. They obviously expected to have a good chance to win a franchise license.

    I don’t think any of the other bids had any backup plans. So if they missed out that would have been it for them

  • Comment 19, posted at 22.05.12 11:03:21 by Bokhoring Reply

    BokhoringTeam captain
     
  • @Zibbie (Comment 13) : they sold it for how much?

  • Comment 20, posted at 22.05.12 11:08:56 by Megatron Reply

    MegatronSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Zibbie (Comment 18) :
    A lesson the Lions haven’t learned after all this time.

  • Comment 21, posted at 22.05.12 11:10:16 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishTeam captain
     
  • @Bokhoring (Comment 19) :

    The Lions currently have back up plans .. other options that are being considered and or explored . You cant defend not having a backup plan .. no way …

  • Comment 22, posted at 22.05.12 11:11:43 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Bokhoring (Comment 15) : Were their players not also drafted into the “coastal sharks” group back then?
    @Zibbie (Comment 16) :
    Agree

    This whole process is an unmitigated inept shambles that once again makes our rugby administration a laughing stock.

    I wonder how much (think the answer is self evident) of this has been thought through and frankly I question whether this has anything at all to do with the development of rugby at grassroots in the region and everything to do with commercial interests – probably around filling the new stadium.

  • Comment 23, posted at 22.05.12 11:12:17 by steve Reply

    Under 21 player
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 21) :

    As far as i understand there are some back up options that are being explored .

  • Comment 24, posted at 22.05.12 11:12:35 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 8) : Re the season tickets? Still waiting for a reply from Mrs. Chaplin. Sorry I should have let you know I’m waiting. :oops:

  • Comment 25, posted at 22.05.12 11:14:31 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 20) :

    no idea . stories im being told :P how true they are … who knows …

  • Comment 26, posted at 22.05.12 11:14:57 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Bokhoring (Comment 11) : the 2nd last team was a proposal, never an agreement that was in place as far as I know.

  • Comment 27, posted at 22.05.12 11:17:01 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @Zibbie (Comment 16) : rubbish man! everything was done right and LEGALLY until the Lions had to be relegated at the end of 2006 and all the corruption started! if the Spears had succeeded in the bid process and one of the Lions or Stormers had to wait for the bottom-finishing team to get relegated, only for Oregan Hoskins and his cronies to fcuk them around would that be fair?

  • Comment 28, posted at 22.05.12 11:18:02 by Megatron Reply

    MegatronSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Zibbie (Comment 13) : bye out the Lions? :lol: They are. They are saying “byeeee” and the Lions are out. :wink:

  • Comment 29, posted at 22.05.12 11:20:53 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 27) : no, it was agreed!

    these are some of the resolutions agreed upon in the President’s Council meeting of June 8 2005 held at the Intercontinental Sandton Sun:

    3. The SE Cape franchise shall be entrenched in the Super 14 Competition for the 2007 & 2008 rugby seasons.

    4. The South African team finishing at the bottom of the log in 2006, will automatically be replaced by the SE Cape for the 2007 season.

    5. At the end of the 2007 Super 14 season, the South African franchise team, which is last on the Super 14 log, excluding the SE Cape, shall play in a promotion relegation match against the franchise team who did not play in the 2007 Super 14 competition.

  • Comment 30, posted at 22.05.12 11:23:54 by Megatron Reply

    MegatronSuper Rugby player
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 25) :

    Thanks..

    I will have to buy this week, if necessary..

  • Comment 31, posted at 22.05.12 11:29:01 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    Richard FergusonCoach
     
  • If government, Sarfu, local and national interests want to promote rugby in the Eastern Cape then they should be investing in building a strong and sustainable base.
    A team of imported mecenaries playing Super Rugby for a few months of the year out of PE for a couple of years, until they possibly get relegated again and all move on, is not going to do anything sustainable for EP or Border rugby at U19, 21, Vodacom Cup or Currie Cup B section level (well may help EP win the B section and get promoted in 2014).

  • Comment 32, posted at 22.05.12 11:29:14 by steve Reply

    Under 21 player
     
  • @Zibbie (Comment 26) : Then you should have said, “I’m told” or “I heard”. :) The way you stated it it looked like fact. :razz:

  • Comment 33, posted at 22.05.12 11:30:48 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 31) : I should know by tomorrow.

  • Comment 34, posted at 22.05.12 11:31:43 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 28) :

    No true .. I would have been unhappy as well . i understand your thinking and reasoning .

    Personally i think the Kings should have a shot at SR next year . Im hoping the Lions can arrange to play in Europe or somewhere else . Sort our things out .

  • Comment 35, posted at 22.05.12 11:32:43 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @steve (Comment 32) : it certainly has helped the sharks! :roll:

  • Comment 36, posted at 22.05.12 11:33:17 by Megatron Reply

    MegatronSuper Rugby player
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 29) :

    hahahah … yes .. :P buy buy buy :P

  • Comment 37, posted at 22.05.12 11:34:57 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 33) :

    eish :P

  • Comment 38, posted at 22.05.12 11:39:15 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @steve (Comment 32) :
    Don’t be naïve. Getting a SR spot is about exposure, revenues and player attraction. Sustainability will be an outcome once those 3 factors are part of the Kings make-up.

    Why do you think the Lions are so desperate not to lose their spot? Think of what they stand to lose, and the reverse applies to the Kings. The wheel must turn.

  • Comment 39, posted at 22.05.12 11:44:42 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishTeam captain
     
  • I have a question… Is it really so horrible to lose a team to Super Rugby who has finished last almost every year anyway?

    The kings can’t really do any worse.

    If the Lions wanted an argument then they should have performed better this year.

    I’m sorry, but they knew this would happen if they didn’t step up and still they only managed that 1 point victory against the Cheetahs in round one.

    The kings may not be any better than the lions, but they can’t fair any worse than the Lions have, or is there something worse than last place?

    It sucks, but that’s just how it is. I wouldn’t have added another weak link, I would have taken one team out completely in the hope of strengthening the other 4 teams, but SA now has to field 5 teams, we may as well switch things up and let the Kings take over from the Lions.

    Like Zibbie here said, maybe the Lions can play in another competition or find a good merge with another union. The Cats actually made it into the semi’s once and the Lions and Cheetahs have been struggling with depth, so maybe they should just embrace it and see what they can do.

  • Comment 40, posted at 22.05.12 11:46:33 by Letgo Reply
    Author
    LetgoTeam captain
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 39) :

    Do you think the Kings will perform better than the Lions ?

    Or how much time would it take ? Like the Lions found out you dont just go around and recruit everybody one time .

  • Comment 41, posted at 22.05.12 11:47:08 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Letgo (Comment 40) :

    Wouldent go for Cats no .

    But i think South Africa as a whole should explore the options in Europe

  • Comment 42, posted at 22.05.12 11:49:19 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • :twisted: Merge Lions with Bulls. The two are so close? :twisted:

  • Comment 43, posted at 22.05.12 12:03:42 by KILLER SHARK Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter
    KILLER SHARKSuper Rugby player
     
  • Merge Lions with Bulls. The two are so close?

  • Comment 44, posted at 22.05.12 12:05:10 by KILLER SHARK Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter
    KILLER SHARKSuper Rugby player
     
  • Will the Kings be joining the Premier Div CC?
    This Year?
    Next Year?
    At all?

  • Comment 45, posted at 22.05.12 12:12:46 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @Zibbie (Comment 41) : “Do you think the Kings will perform better than the Lions?” – that is not the point, in the Aviva Premiership teams get relegated they get paid a lump sum and the leader of the division below comes in to the Premiership automatically. it is not for anyone to question whether they will do better than the team relegated!

  • Comment 46, posted at 22.05.12 12:13:43 by Megatron Reply

    MegatronSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Zibbie (Comment 41) :
    I think 2 years guaranteed is short if you want a team to build from where the Kings are. However, the Lions can’t be left out in limbo indefinitely.

    The Kings will struggle in SR over those 2 years, but I’m sure SARU will try to get another team in year 3 anyway.

    Once the Kings have had some time in SR, the revenue and exposure should help them attract good talent, and more importantly, convince local talent to stay. I think that’s when the success will come.

  • Comment 47, posted at 22.05.12 12:31:19 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishTeam captain
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 46) : True . So Sr needs to be the same . i dont mind . im just asking what will be achieved by throwing out the Lions . Do Sa have enough players to sustain this ? because if the players will just move between the Lions and the Kings then what is the point ? im just asking questions .

    @Big Fish (Comment 47) :

    Yes . But it will take a long time for the Kings to get everything ready . 10 , 20 years . Do SARU have the patients to back the Kings for this period of time

    Also the Lions are still recovering from the Cats debacle . We will also need time . So we will see

  • Comment 48, posted at 22.05.12 12:53:14 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 46) : The Aviva premiership system is not as simple as that.
    A club needs to be able to tick a few other boxes before being promoted which is why the Cornish Pirates can’t go up this year.

    For the record I think that the Lions have been poor at SuperRugby and administratively for years now so have only themselves to blame for their predicament. I also support the idea that no union should be guaranteed participation and that there should be a promotion – relegation system in place perhaps based on Currie Cup standing at the end of each year. Bottom CC side then gets first call on drafting players for the SR comp from other unions.
    @Big Fish (Comment 39) : I am not naive and understand the financial impact of Super Rugby participation – I am cynical about motivation and who gets to benefit.
    I also do not think that a poorly performing SuperRugby side is going to get young players flocking to an EP academy (where the EP jnr sides play B section) or do anything for the state of club rugby in the region. Certainly not in the 2 year window proposed

  • Comment 49, posted at 22.05.12 13:32:45 by steve Reply

    Under 21 player
     
  • @steve (Comment 49) : what boxes are there to tick in SA? who else was ever made to tick them?

  • Comment 50, posted at 22.05.12 14:18:51 by Megatron Reply

    MegatronSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 50) : I didn’t say that there were any boxes to tick in SA – merely pointed out that the Premiership imposes some. It is quite obvious that there are no boxes at all other than political influence.

    The only box that the existing franchises had to tick was performance in the Currie Cup – that determined the original franchises. Something that Griquas,Pumas, Leopards and Boland have done a lot better than EP at.

    If you read my post you will see that I support the idea of promotion and relegation and certainly dont think that the Lions (or the Bulls not that long ago) should have any permanent right to participate.

  • Comment 51, posted at 22.05.12 14:51:22 by steve Reply

    Under 21 player
     
  • @steve (Comment 51) : you are sadly mistaken, currie cup performance has NEVER determined who plays super rugby, NEVER!

    even in 2005 when SARU got the 5th franchise licence they said interested parties must submit bids to be evaluated by Pricewaterhouse and NO it was not in the accounting firm’s brief to look at Currie Cup performance! in 2010 the Kings big against Melbourne for the 5th Aussie franchise licence and again performance was not part of the criteria the tender adjudicators
    were looking for!

    it is a common fallacy among south african rugby supporters that Super Rugby franchises were handed out based on currie cup performance :roll:

  • Comment 52, posted at 22.05.12 15:05:41 by Megatron Reply

    MegatronSuper Rugby player
     
  • @steve (Comment 49) :

    You see the Big problem for the Lions and the Cheetahs is that for a lot of years we had to share the income from SARU .

    So if Saru gave each team R14 mil for super rugby participation The sharks got R14 mil , The bulls got R14 mil and the Lions and the Cheetahs had to split the R14 mil

    If the Sharks got a R50 mil sponsor they took home R50 mil . if the cats got a R50 mil sponsor it had to be split between 2 unions .

    The Lions had half the amount of home games the Sharks had .. so too the Cheetahs .. and so on and so on …

    So i dont think the Lions union are to blame on there own …

  • Comment 53, posted at 22.05.12 15:07:44 by Zibbie Reply
    Competition Winner
    ZibbieSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 52) : Tell that to poor WP who were booted from Super Rugby back in 1997 because they weren’t in the top 4. It was only after that when SARU decided to go the regional setup and created the Cats the Stormers were born and WP returned to Super Rugby.

  • Comment 54, posted at 22.05.12 15:08:21 by Butchie34 Reply
    Author
    Currie Cup player
     
  • @steve (Comment 51) : Prior to the S12, it was a provincial competition between the top provinces from each country based on their standing in their local competitions.

    The S12 became a regional competition, with Louis Luyt determining the composition of the regional franchises. Geography, not performance was the determining factor.

    The S14 franchise composition was based on bids from the SA CC provinces who decided who they wanted to partner with and the Spears lost out based on various criteria decided by PriceWaterhouse, not SARU.

  • Comment 55, posted at 22.05.12 15:15:25 by Megatron Reply

    MegatronSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Butchie34 (Comment 54) : those were not “franchises” but provinces, the current franchises were NOT based on currie cup performance!

    here’s a riddle :mrgreen:

    the “coastal sharks” were made up of EP, Border & Sharks – how did Currie Cup perfomance determine that franchise make up?

  • Comment 56, posted at 22.05.12 15:20:36 by Megatron Reply

    MegatronSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 56) : It does not – that split was a geographical one.

    I was commenting on your statement: “you are sadly mistaken, currie cup performance has NEVER determined who plays super rugby, NEVER!” It was still Super Rugby, in fact it was still Super 12 and currie cup performance in that specific period DID determine who played Super Rugby.

  • Comment 57, posted at 22.05.12 15:23:36 by Butchie34 Reply
    Author
    Currie Cup player
     
  • @Butchie34 (Comment 57) : you’re quite right but for steve to suggest that the current franchises are based on currie cup performance is fallacious.

  • Comment 58, posted at 22.05.12 15:30:55 by Megatron Reply

    MegatronSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 58) : No you’re right on that score. Currently, it’s the regions and has nothing to do with Currie Cup performance. Picking up stompies a bit.

  • Comment 59, posted at 22.05.12 15:32:21 by Butchie34 Reply
    Author
    Currie Cup player
     
  • @Butchie34 (Comment 59) : ;-) “The only box that the existing franchises had to tick was performance in the Currie Cup – that determined the original franchises. Something that Griquas,Pumas, Leopards and Boland have done a lot better than EP at

    another common mistake is to think “provinces” & “franchises” are the same thing…

  • Comment 60, posted at 22.05.12 15:49:52 by Megatron Reply

    MegatronSuper Rugby player
     
  • @steve (Comment 51) :
    Firstly, read the rules regarding politics not being an item of discussion; and I am saying this sincerely.

    Secondly, politics is not the sole issue here – economics and the need to broaden a historically narrow power-base for rugby is.

    Referring to politics at this juncture only conveniently ignores part of the reason the SA rugby landscape looks the way it does. Let’s leave that out of this discussion for 2 good reasons.

  • Comment 61, posted at 22.05.12 16:11:11 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishTeam captain
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 61) : you’re quite the diplomat, are you sure you’re not in International Relations? :razz:

  • Comment 62, posted at 22.05.12 16:29:40 by Megatron Reply

    MegatronSuper Rugby player
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 62) :
    :wink:

    Nah – just your ordinary run-of-the-mill bullshitter!

  • Comment 63, posted at 22.05.12 16:44:59 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishTeam captain
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 55) : This is all moot but;

    Super rugby started with the Super 10 – i said “original”.
    I do understand the distinction between Provinces and Franchise although admittedly poor drafting on my part may have given you reason to doubt this.

    That said, the “franchises” are such in name only IMO, and have become proxies for the provinces in which they are based. They wear variations on the provincial colours, play out of the same stadium, have the same management, and players surplus to Super rugby requirements play for that province’s Vodacom Cup side. OFS and Griquas are the only arrangement that I can think of that operates as a semblance of a franchise, but even here it is purely to top up on player depth.

    The Super12 bid process was open to all. I suspect that PWC’s role was to adjudicate independently based on criteria that Sarfu must have determined. I very much doubt that PWC developed their own scorecard.

    @Big Fish (Comment 61) :
    Thank you for pointing that out – and i also mean that sincerely.
    Unfortunately in this discussion that is a bit like ignoring the elephant in the room.
    While the noble aspirations you point out are commendable I find it hard to believe that noble intention drove this decision.

    Finally, I have nothing against the Eastern Cape or the inclusion of a team from there in SuperRugby. I just do not see any compelling case for their preferred treatment and there are as many good regional cases for social upliftment that have better arguments on rugby merit – the lowveld for eg.

    What most irks me about this is the shambolic way that it has been handled.

  • Comment 64, posted at 22.05.12 17:26:41 by steve Reply

    Under 21 player
     
  • SARU explains Kings’ status to Parliamentary Portfolio Committee

    The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Sport was reassured on Tuesday that the Southern Kings would participate in the 2013 Vodacom Super Rugby competition.

    A delegation of the leadership of the South African Rugby Union (SARU) made a scheduled appearance before the committee to discuss a number of issues, including the Southern Kings.

    “The Kings will play in the competition in 2013, but not at the expense of one of the other franchises,” Jurie Roux, the CEO of SARU, told the committee.

    “Resolving that part of the equation is the issue at hand and we have a number of proposals to take to the Exco (Executive Council) and ultimately to the General Council for a decision in July.”

    SARU also briefed the Committee on its Strategic Transformation Plan – which has been newly aligned to the Department of Sport’s National Sports and Recreation Plan – and also on the progress to establishing four SARU Academies as a pilot project in Boland, SWD, Border and Eastern Province.

    “It was a very productive and useful meeting, which gave us an opportunity to share our plans with the Committee and understand the priorities and concerns of our parliamentary leaders,” said Roux.

    “It was gratifying to be complimented on the improved quality of our presentation and for the professionalism of our organisation.”

    Issued by SARU Corporate Affairs

    So from this I think its clear that a merge is on the cards, but who?? And how will the money be split, 5 ways or 6??

  • Comment 65, posted at 23.05.12 08:00:53 by Zebra Reply

    Under 21 player
     
  • @Zebra (Comment 65) :

    Please can you NOT copy and paste articles from other sites here, especially since we already have the story running.

  • Comment 66, posted at 23.05.12 08:09:03 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    Richard FergusonCoach
     

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.