KSA Shark ©

Marinos hits back at critics

Written by Andre Bosch (KSA Shark ©)

Posted in :In the news, Super 14 on 27 May 2009 at 07:53
Tagged with : , , , ,

SA Rugby has issued a statement by its acting manager director of rugby, Andy Marinos, in response to reports that the organisation has suffered financially as a result of Sanzar’s Dublin Agreement.

“Contrary to some ill-informed reports, the manner in which SA Rugby’s broadcast rights have now been parcelled and sold has resulted in the organisation being in the best position it has ever been financially, in respect of its TV rights.

“South African Rugby was in favour of and agreed to the distribution in three equal parts of the revenues from any future sale of rights to the Sanzar properties of Super Rugby and Tri-Nations, as part of the Dublin Agreement.

Previous Sanzar rights agreements included other domestic South African rugby competitions such as the Currie Cup and Vodacom Cup as well as our June Tests and the former distribution model reflected that.

“The rights to those properties have already been sold by SA Rugby to SuperSport, however, for R700m (a 100 percent increase in value) for the period 2011 to 2015 – neither with the payment of any agent’s commissions nor to be shared with any other national union, as was the case previously, it is worth noting.

“The removal of those properties from the basket of Sanzar properties rendered it inequitable for SA Rugby to continue to receive the largest proportion of the rights fees flowing from Super and Tri-Nations rugby alone.

“The value of the future rights to Sanzar’s properties has still to be negotiated, but rugby supporters can be assured that the nett effect is that South African rugby is, and will be, considerably better off.

“The reports of a R150m loss are simply false; the new deal has doubled the value of our domestic rugby and we are in a healthier state, before any final discussion and agreement around the Super Rugby and Tri-Nations components.

“Finally, nothing has changed on the issue of the Southern Kings’ eventual inclusion in Super Rugby. That objective remains a critical goal for South African Rugby and is on the agenda for a President’s Council Bosberaad this week.

“It was previously agreed that the new team would play in the Australian conference and that that team would be selected through a tender process. We are now awaiting the issue of those tender criteria by Sanzar.

“The decision confirmed by Sanzar in Dublin in this, was always envisaged by SA Rugby and constitutes the first hurdle being successfully negotiated en route to the Southern Kings being incorporated into Super Rugby.”



  • Doesn’t actually sound to bad financially.

    Now can you answer the critics who are worried about the future of the Currie Cup? 👿

  • Comment 1, posted at 27.05.09 08:01:29 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©
  • it’s not all about money, Andy Pandy

  • Comment 2, posted at 27.05.09 08:21:31 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • Rights, rights, rights, rights… 🙄 🙄 🙄

  • Comment 3, posted at 27.05.09 08:25:04 by Charlie Reply

  • @robdylan (Comment 2) :

    Therein lies the problem. The man in the street knows it is not all about rugby, but do Marinos and O’Neill know it?

  • Comment 4, posted at 27.05.09 08:26:24 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • O’Neil is an arsehole but he is also an astute Businessman I can’t see him just giving everything away for free. There must be payback somewhere

  • Comment 5, posted at 27.05.09 08:29:57 by Whindy Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner
  • @Whindy (Comment 5) :

    O’Neill is the Sean Fitzpatrick and Naas Botha of Rugby Administration.

    You can’t stand the guy, but you wish you had someone with his skills in your team. 😳

  • Comment 6, posted at 27.05.09 08:36:23 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Don’t you love knee-jerk reactions?

  • Comment 7, posted at 27.05.09 08:40:00 by Baldrick Reply

  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 6) : good comparison 😆

  • Comment 8, posted at 27.05.09 08:42:16 by Whindy Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner
  • @Baldrick (Comment 7) : One wonders why Marinos is so defensive, in the first place if we are so better off??

  • Comment 9, posted at 27.05.09 08:43:27 by Whindy Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner
  • I see the text but all I read is blah blah blah ?!?

    Morning all

  • Comment 10, posted at 27.05.09 09:07:40 by Rahul Reply

  • @Rahul (Comment 10) :

    That happens to me when I read your Manure emails… 😈

  • Comment 11, posted at 27.05.09 09:09:27 by wpw Reply
  • @wpw (Comment 11) : And Man United have never lost a Champions league final :mrgreen:

  • Comment 12, posted at 27.05.09 09:15:34 by Rahul Reply

  • @Rahul (Comment 12) :

    there is happened again… blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah!!! :mrgreen:

  • Comment 13, posted at 27.05.09 09:24:01 by wpw Reply
  • Okay let’s put this in simple terms…

    The local competitions (NOTHING TO DO WITH SANZAR WHICH IS S14/15 and 3N) negotiated a better deal for themselves.


    The UNIONS still has to agree to these new so-called proposed plans!!! Where the Currie Cup will be cut from 8 to 6 teams!!!

    SANZAR, which is the 3 nations competiting in Super rugby and 3N re-negotiated their deal.

    NOTE: No broadcasting company has yet agreed to any money yet…

    BUT where SANZAR got 38% of the pie, they now settled for a 5% decrease and will only get 33% – in money terms in today’s value, that is R150-million!

    Who knows what it will be when the new deal is brokered?

    The reason SA got the bigger slice of the pie is because we have the bigger viewing audience, plus our cost to compete in the tournament costs more specifically with the travel factor.

    So in conclusion Marinos, you brokered a great deal for local rugby… Clap, clap, clap… Well done, but I would have expected nothing less…

    You did however piss away 5% of the SANZAR pie and gave it on a plate to NZ and Aus…

  • Comment 14, posted at 27.05.09 09:24:31 by Morné Reply
  • @Rahul (Comment 12) : you heard this one about there is always first :mrgreen:

  • Comment 15, posted at 27.05.09 09:25:41 by rekinek Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
  • @wpw (Comment 13) : 😆

    @rekinek (Comment 15) : The power of positive thinking!!!

  • Comment 16, posted at 27.05.09 09:30:20 by Rahul Reply

  • @Morné (Comment 14) : You do mean SA pie? Im still lost 😳

  • Comment 17, posted at 27.05.09 09:32:34 by Rahul Reply

  • @Rahul (Comment 16) : i tried this year – you may guess on who – not working for me 😆

  • Comment 18, posted at 27.05.09 09:33:39 by rekinek Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
  • Happy happy for Nita 😛

  • Comment 19, posted at 27.05.09 09:38:50 by rekinek Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
  • @Morné (Comment 14) : in short, Marinos is either a liar or a fool… maybe both?

  • Comment 20, posted at 27.05.09 09:40:28 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @rekinek (Comment 18) : That was TT’s fault. Too much negativity hat no one could overcome 👿

  • Comment 21, posted at 27.05.09 09:47:58 by Rahul Reply

  • @rekinek (Comment 19) :

    Oh my word! didn’t even see that.

    Hey Nita happy Birthday.!!!!!!!!!!

  • Comment 22, posted at 27.05.09 09:52:21 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • @Rahul (Comment 17) :

    No SANZAR pie.

    SANZAR is SA, NZ and Aus combined, the CC and VC has nothing to do with SANZAR.

    Marinos is bragging about closing a great deal for the CC and VC.

    Yiptee bloody dooh.

    Did he expect to only get the same money or get less? Of course the deal with SuperSport was going to be much better for those comps.

    The thing is SA owned 38% of the SANZAR pie (S14 and 3N), with NZ 32% and Aus 29%.

    IN Rand value 38% relates to $323,000,000-00.

    Now THAT amount should have been the base to negotiate the deal for 2011 to 2015.

    They STILL need to approach NEWSCORP, the broadcaster, to broker a deal.

    What Marinos effectively did is cut away R150,000,000-00 in revenues from the above amount which we had, and will enter the negotiation table with much less…

    How #%^*&@ daft is that???

    Aus and NZ has gained 4% and 1% respectively – SA lost 5%!!!


    Put the size of the respective rugby markets in perspective to evaluate just how important South Africa is to the SANZAR alliance:

    1. South Africa: 1010 Clubs and 512,000 registered rugby players
    2. New Zealand: 595 Clubs and 140,000 registered rugby players
    3. Australia: 848 Clubs and 83,000 registered rugby players

    Now forget all the bullshit Marinos is trying to feed you with a better deal from SuperSport for the Currie Cup.


    Does the new Super 15 format put South Africa in a 5% advantage over Aus and NZ in any way?

    Hell no.

    Marinos is a bloody fool.

  • Comment 23, posted at 27.05.09 10:10:15 by Morné Reply
  • Exactly what did we get in this deal?

    Did we get the additional franchise?


    We conceded, the others gained, we have to re-shuffle our domestic comps, tests etc.

    Who is the winner here?

  • Comment 24, posted at 27.05.09 10:22:30 by Morné Reply
  • @Morné (Comment 24) : John O’Neill. Duh!

  • Comment 25, posted at 27.05.09 11:09:41 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (Comment 25) :


  • Comment 26, posted at 27.05.09 11:10:51 by Morné Reply
  • This would NEVER have happened if Tony McKeever was doing the negotiating… As always we concede to the Aussies…

  • Comment 27, posted at 27.05.09 11:44:13 by wpw Reply
  • @Morné (Comment 23) : Maybe he got a sidelined deal 😈

  • Comment 28, posted at 27.05.09 11:48:26 by Charlie Reply

  • @wpw (Comment 27) : Did anyone happen to read Tonys breakdown on Sportsleader?

  • Comment 29, posted at 27.05.09 11:59:44 by Claytie Reply
  • Ok wait.

  • Comment 30, posted at 27.05.09 12:02:33 by Claytie Reply
  • @Claytie (Comment 29) :


    you got as URL?

  • Comment 31, posted at 27.05.09 12:26:31 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • I thought we got a bigger piece of the SANZAR pie because we had also sold the CC and VC rights as part of the package?

    Anyway, Marinos has simply been true to form. I seem to remember it being 1999 when he threatened to boycott the S12(s10?) semi and then also never carried out his threat.

    Fact is he talks a good game but when it comes down to it he doesnt really come up with the goods. it like his playing career really. Almost there but no balls when it really counts.

    SA have made all the compromises in this deal and walk away with less money. How poor is that?

    Where JON bested Marinos is when he convinced him to compromise against the Oz proposal and not against the status quo which should’ve been the starting point.

    SA walks away from these negotiations with nothing.
    We’re losing a mid-year test.
    We’re shuffling our domestic comp around.
    We’re not getting the extra team (and if you think we are you need your head read – or simply review how the latest negotiations with Oz have gone)

    What did Oz compromise from the 2009 SuperRugby model?
    They got their conference system, and therefore their domestic comp, financed under the SANZAR deal.
    They get the extra team.
    They get extra profit-sharing.
    They will feel they have the wood over us. And they do.

    Marinos – you’ve been played mate. Like an expensive guitar. The worst part is you dont even realise it.

    Marinos played chicken with o’Neill and bottled it right before the collision.

  • Comment 32, posted at 27.05.09 14:08:08 by VinChainSaw Reply
  • Still cant understand what the CC had to do with Sanzar in the first place?

    This make me even more moerig. I mean we give 60% of the income via SuperSport to Murdoch but we pocket only a third.

    Marinos what happen to the other 26.7%??????

    Founding Australia!

    No wonder NZ stick behind ONeil because it look like this Sanzar deal has financed the NPC also.

    Please tell me I am wrong here.

  • Comment 33, posted at 28.05.09 12:01:34 by PaarlBok Reply

  • @PaarlBok (Comment 33) : Hello Oom

  • Comment 34, posted at 28.05.09 12:10:05 by Claytie Reply
  • Hello Kleitie, long time no see. Stay a bit away to let the dust settle on the Tjarkies. 😀

  • Comment 35, posted at 28.05.09 12:23:06 by PaarlBok Reply

  • @PaarlBok (Comment 35) : 😆

  • Comment 36, posted at 28.05.09 12:39:16 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
  • @Morné (Comment 23) :
    Previously SARU got 38% of the pie involving 3N, S14, CC and VC.

    In future they will get 33% of the pie involving 3N and S15 and 100% of the pie involving CC and VC.

    Which is the biggest?
    It depends on the size of the future pies.

    Also, the size of the respective rugby markets have nothing to do with the amount of amateur clubs or players. It is the collective amount of money the customers (fans) are willing to spend that determines market size.
    Rather list the size of the crowds at the matches in each country and take into account the different ticket prices.

    The AUS market maybe a lot larger than we think.

  • Comment 37, posted at 28.05.09 16:17:01 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @fyndraai (Comment 37) :

    Why the size of the crowds at the matches for tv broadcasting fees. Surely it is the number of people watching

  • Comment 38, posted at 28.05.09 16:21:57 by Ollie Reply

  • on tv that is

  • Comment 39, posted at 28.05.09 16:29:23 by Ollie Reply

  • @Ollie (Comment 38) : maybe they prefer to watch full stadia.

    seriously – strange.

  • Comment 40, posted at 28.05.09 16:34:40 by rekinek Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
  • @Ollie (Comment 39) : You are correct, but match attendance figures are publicly available.
    To demonstrate the sizes of the different markets one can therefore use the match attendance figures and assume that the TV audiences are in the same proportion.

  • Comment 41, posted at 28.05.09 17:06:07 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • I have read on these forums that Border rugby union has hundreds of clubs.
    If we use Morne’s criteria, Border should be the biggest rugby market in SA. I’m pretty sure it is not the case.

  • Comment 42, posted at 28.05.09 17:09:01 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @rekinek (Comment 40) : Not that strange. It’s called logic and works like this:

    If lots of people bother to show up to watch the game in person one may deduce that interest in the game is high and the TV audience will therefore also be large.

  • Comment 43, posted at 28.05.09 17:22:23 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @fyndraai (Comment 43) : I must be then not limited by logic.

    I differ that it works as simple as that. Does it take account of the weather – few people at the stands but then more glued to a tv. what about ellis park where apparently is too scary to go to. and what about a tv culture v rugby culture. or SA supporters who cannot go to Aus or NZ to watch their team but eill turn on tv.

    aa – not that simple

  • Comment 44, posted at 28.05.09 17:43:15 by rekinek Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
  • Why? Why? Cant the SABC broadcast any games? Even if its only the local derbies? 🙁 😥

  • Comment 45, posted at 28.05.09 18:22:53 by JarsonX Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition WinnerCompetition Winner
  • There are always exceptions to a general rule and they are easy to list but it does not invalidate the rule.

    In this case the general rule is that the better proxy for the relative size of the TV audiences in the 3 countries is the number of fans attending the matches and not the number of registered players clubs.

  • Comment 46, posted at 28.05.09 18:28:59 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @fyndraai (Comment 46) : maybe not a general rule then but some accepted standard. that may still seem strange.
    and what about induction instead of deduction.

    just stirring a bit now 😉

  • Comment 47, posted at 28.05.09 20:05:16 by rekinek Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
  • @JarsonX (Comment 45) : Boet they dont have enough money to pay 7de laans actors. They have to buy the rights from MNet.

    Pretty sure we have the numbers be it watching on TV or bums on seats. A few weeks back Waikato Stadium had 20,000 when they played the Hurricanes, vok when the Chiefs visited Newlands there were 25,000 Stormers supporters. Rugby aint Australias nr1 sport and that lot have a very low viewers market.

    One thing they can change with ease is this saturday morning games. Make no sense at all and they should change that to Aus/NZ afternoon matches. Many of us dont watch that because we have much more important things to do (myself walking line with my kid busy with his sport activities) then watching the Farce playing the Reds. Pretty sure both countries will produce much more bums on seats with afternoon matches like we have.

  • Comment 48, posted at 29.05.09 12:21:16 by PaarlBok Reply


Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.