KSA Shark ©

KZNRU try to ensure ABSA Stadium Income

Written by Andre Bosch (KSA Shark ©)

Posted in :Uncategorized on 31 Mar 2008 at 07:19
Tagged with :

Springbok coach Peter de Villiers’s contract was in the balance until a few hours before Friday’s Saru AGM, according to a newspaper report.

News 24 reports that Afrikaans newspaper Sondag claimed that a last minute refusal to sign the constitutional changes in South Africa’s rugby constitution almost scuppered the Springbok coach’s contract.

De Villiers wanted a clause changed that would give him sole control over team selections and it seemed it was a done deal before the election. But the Sharks refused to sign the change that would allow De Villiers to finalise his contract until a constitutional change which they had suggested was allowed to also proceed.

This was eventually resolved after late night meetings on Thursday, allowing Saru to complete the constitutional changes at their Annual General Meeting on Friday.

The Sharks were concerned that a decision taken by the national body – whereby Unions hosting Test matches could play them outside their geographical borders at bigger stadiums – could hurt them in the long run. The Absa Stadium in Durban is next door to the new soccer stadium currently being constructed for the 2010 World Cup and thus the Sharks wanted a constitutional change which ensured unions could only play Tests at Saru affiliated stadiums.

Sharks CEO Brian van Zyl confirmed to Sondag that they had opposed the constitutional changes. “We did oppose them, because the Stadium is a big threat to us,” Van Zyl told the newspaper.

“When we proposed the change, we were told it couldn’t be accepted as it was too close to the AGM. We then heard they would accept the change to the clause which concerned Peter’s contract and we felt it was unfair, as we had already been told no. It was a matter of principle, nothing more.”

De Villiers is expected to sign his contract within days


  • There is some good news hidden in this article.

    If the KZNRU see the 2010 stadium as a threat then it means the supposed enforced move to the new stadium is anything but as cut and dried as some people would like it to be.

  • Comment 1, posted at 31.03.08 07:24:12 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©
  • get up stand up stand up for your rights, well done Mr Van Zyl, thats why we are the Sharks and our stadium has the reputation of the best party atmosfeer and test venue,

  • Comment 2, posted at 31.03.08 07:24:27 by barend Reply
  • The article doesn’t confirm how the matter was resolved though. 🙁

  • Comment 3, posted at 31.03.08 07:30:44 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©
  • we will have to gather more info maybe ask the ppl at the Sharks site

  • Comment 4, posted at 31.03.08 07:45:35 by barend Reply
  • I think the problem is the new stadium is like the Aussie stadia where the crowd isn’t up against the field, but there’s a running track around the rugby/soccer pitch, and you are so far removed form the action, even in the front row. And higher up, it’s going to be worse. Also, the reports are that the Sharks would be a tenant and answerable to the Municipality.

  • Comment 5, posted at 31.03.08 08:07:29 by hellbent Reply
  • Also, the reports are that the Sharks would be a tenant and answerable to the Municipality.

    31.03.08 08:07:29 – hellbent Edit

    HB that is the point though. If the Sharks are seeing this stadium as an opposition stadium then (to me) it means something has happened somwhere to change that.

    Why would they be bothered where the matches were played if
    1) They were going to be tenants at the 2010 stadium
    2) If they were going to have to “vacate” ABSA stadium.

    To me their comments and concerns indicate they are staying at ABSA Stadium.

  • Comment 6, posted at 31.03.08 08:19:31 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©
  • KSA, I don’t think they want to relinquish their hold on absa. They would share the stadium with soccer and cricket, there are fewer suites as well, so they would lose there. There are apparently all kinds of cons and very few pros to moving across.

    Financially, it makes sense for the Municipality to have an anchor tenant like the Sharks, but for the Sharks, it would mean a huge cut in income.

  • Comment 7, posted at 31.03.08 08:24:00 by hellbent Reply
  • KSA, the obvious thing is a loss of income if the Sharks move.
    1. probably have to pay to be there and share income.
    2. No more hosting of concerts and soccer games. This past weekend, they had 40000 rugby fans on Saturday, and hosted Chiefs and Sundowns on Sunday. Imagine the payday that is, and what a loss if they had to pay the Municipailty to host one rugby game over that weekend?
    3. Not sure, but I hear most suites are taken at the Stadium, and the new one will have fewer, and will be rented out on a match-basis.
    A big company needs the security and they won’t have it. No-one is going to decorate a suite for rugby and risk it being stuffed up by someone at another event.

  • Comment 8, posted at 31.03.08 08:29:29 by hellbent Reply
  • Hb

    I agree with all that.

    The media had some stories some time back about the KZNRU having to move and that it was a done deal and they had no choice. From these statements though it seems as if it is NOT a done deal and the KZNRU are going to stay.

  • Comment 9, posted at 31.03.08 08:52:21 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.