Should the ARU sue the Boks if they send an under strength side?

[ACT Crusader]

2) A contract such as the SANZAR agreement is enforcable by law, of that there can be abolsutely no doubt. breaches to it are subject to legal action, that's the whole point of having contracts, you provide motivation for other party to stick to it. There will be a clause allowing for that.
.

What's the clause in the SANZAR that is potentially being breached?

A coach selection is a highly subjective matter and there is a massive discretionary power that even the sharpest lawyers would find it difficult to argue some point of contention against a coach.

I would suggest that the Springbok brand is what the SARU has to deliver on. They could send a bunch of no names who are rightfully contracted to the SARU and as long as they are called Springboks they would not be in breach.

Coach PDV could easily turn around as say, "form demanded these players be considered" or "I want To test a new game plan and these are the players to do it" etc etc

Yes this is a commercial arrangement that SANZAR has but it does not remove the sporting element of rugby. If I were the counsel I'd be advising there's no case.

 

[exmatelote]

interesting to see the SA point and there is a solid argument that the new pool system helps Australia out to some degree but to keep the AUD pouring in, I remain convinced there is more to it in the longer run. The previous system had very poorly attended matches when SA and NZ sides showed up but the longer term financial health of the game will be helped by this new system, if as SANZAR suggest, crowds turn up in bigger numbers to see derbies (and the travel expenses are cut on average - these expenses are shared and that's why the AUD is vital).

I also think exposing the top players to more super games will get a deeper pool of players from which the test sides can be drawn and only help the game down south. As great as the NPC and curries cup are, they are not super level. close though.

What the NZ and SA unions don't have to deal to the same degree with is a very, very competitive market. The ARU is up against the NRL and the AFL and the paying customer is spoiled for choice. They simply will not turn up in droves to see whatever dross is available, they'll go elsewhere. If the Lions play Australian super sides minus the wallaby test players, the crowds will reflect that (especially if the tickets are +80%) but it's not so much like that in SA where they will turn up. Maybe the fans are not as die hard, or just expect more and are sharper with their cash.

The choice for the NZ and SA unions is to decide whether they can make more money (and compete with france & japan for salaries) with their domestic comps having top players more and thus a shorter super season, the northern sides sending the monteferrand 3rd XV on tour plus the TN, or this new system. I think the benefits clearly outweigh any doubts and to suggest the NZ and SA unions have either been dumb in allowing us an "advantage" or charitable does not stand close scrutiny.

It's for these reasons I am against sending a deliberately weakened side for a top tier test.

 

[Mank]

Well argued. I am also of the opinion that SA's best interests currently lie with a stable SANZAR alliance. I am not 100% convinced that an ever expanding and exceptionally long super rugby comp is the way to maintain this, but I'm not convinced the other way either. I think only time will tell.

As for this year, well, as I said, there are a lot of form players in SA that would not make a usual de Villiers match 22. I think there is good value in seeing what these players offer at test level in the tri-nations. Firstly, we may see a few gems added to the RWC squad. Secondly, over played seniors get some needed rest.

 

[exmatelote]

What's the clause in the SANZAR that is potentially being breached?

A coach selection is a highly subjective matter and there is a massive discretionary power that even the sharpest lawyers would find it difficult to argue some point of contention against a coach.

I would suggest that the Springbok brand is what the SARU has to deliver on. They could send a bunch of no names who are rightfully contracted to the SARU and as long as they are called Springboks they would not be in breach.

Coach PDV could easily turn around as say, "form demanded these players be considered" or "I want To test a new game plan and these are the players to do it" etc etc

Yes this is a commercial arrangement that SANZAR has but it does not remove the sporting element of rugby. If I were the counsel I'd be advising there's no case.

Clearly niether us of know the exact wording but it's very easy to word a contract such that it would be enforceable. Standing in a court saying, "yes, I picked 13 players you've never heard of and I genuinely think these are the best players for this game plan, my current crop of highly played seasoned test players, including 2 test centurians and half a dozen 50+ caps and 2 former world players of the year, were incapable of executing it" would be shot to pieces on cross examination and by expert witnesses called into deal with a multi million court case. I'd love to see PDV try it though, really I would.

If I were counsel for the prosecution seeking lost revenue i'd say stick PdV on the stand and let him run. If nothing else, it would make great reality TV.

 

[Groucho]

Yes, the reference is correct.

Right, I understand what you mean by level playing field in this particular year then. Is it confirmed that the "top" players do not play in the Currie Cup? Well, hardly surprising since the Currie Cup starts in July and so will the tri-nations. It'll be worse next year and the point is that in general SA players will be playing more games and our CC devalued. Anyway, I understand the ARUs and the fans sentiments but I'll stand my original post, I'm happy enough if some of the form S15 (ok?) players are given a go in the tri-nations. You'd be pretty hard pressed to make any legal case about who the best players are. Your SA top 22 may look quite different from someone else.

That apart, I did hear a rumour that there was a hand shake agreement that all three nations would be sending first choice teams? No idea if this is true.

Mank, we may not have a national competition but we have the Shute Shield and QPR, in which our non Tri-Nations players will be playing. These may not be as august as the Currie Cup but they involve the same players that would be playing if we did have a national comp. I really don't see what the disadvantage is to you guys.

 

[exmatelote]

It'll be reviewed in a few years, I am pretty sure they will build reviews into the agreement and if the projections are wrong I guess they'll need to adjust it. They'll also need to adjust it for other factors, e.g. if the Euro implodes and the threat from france reduces.

The tough thing about test rugby is that some excellent players don't get picked. The SA pack will be missing some top players, for sure but my hope is the extended super season will spread this problem to Australia.

 

[wolverine]

The ARU should not sue SARU. PdV is doing exactly the same thing as Graham Henry is resting his frontliners on the away leg. By proposing to rest players, Both are emulating what Jake White did, on the recommendation of Sport Scientist, Dr Tim Noakes, and former All Black conditioner Graham Lowe - that is, to peak for RWC finals in September/October, the players would need a rest mid-year. In 2007, Jake White took the advice, and won the World Cup - we didn't.

The ARU has only just questioned the September-October timing of RWC, despite RWC 2007 also being staged in September. 1999 & 2003 were held in the October and November slot, why didn't the ARU ask questions about it 6 years ago? Why only now in mid 2011?

SARU and NZ are protecting the welfare of their players, which will allow them to challenge for the title. If teams need 8 weeks off-season rest and 8 weeks pre-season (RL internationals get that), the senior Boks will have had 3 weeks rest in off-season, and 5 weeks in July-August 2011. They'll be primed.

OTOH, our players are already dropping like flies with injury, and at this rate, we'll be knackered come the Quarter Finals - again. How was Larkham's World Cup campaign in 2007? :nta:

 

[waratahjesus]

I would suggest that the ARU are questioning it now and not six years ago is due to the different super rugb comp being played and the northern hemispheres refusal to tour there teams. It means a loss of revenue that is now being hardened by having to sell test matches against sub standard teams.

Your right though, the all blacks did it last time and that worked out well for them.

 

[wolverine]

Their so-called "B team" will be more skilful, and is currently in better form, than the "A team. The current A team which will get a rest is:

Frans Steyn; Pietersen, Fourie, de Villiers, Habana; Steyn, du Preez; Spies, Burger, Smith; Matfield, Bakkies Botha; Smit (c), Bismarck du Plessis, Steenkamp. BENCH: Mtawarira, Jannie du Plessis, Bekker, Alberts, Pienaar, James, Aplon.

A number of players in that a team are either injured (Fourie du Preez, Smith, Steenkamp) or out of form (Habana, Spies, Smit).

The B team will have quite a bit of exciting talent:
Lambie; Mvovo, de Jongh, Olivier, Basson; Jantjies, Hougaard; Kankowski, Heinrich Brussow, Danie Roussouw; Muller, Flip vdM; BJ Botha, Ralapelle, Kruger. BENCH: Strauss, Oosthuizen, Hargreaves, Louw, Januarie, Jacobs, Kirchner.

Players like Mvovo, Basson have been in much better form than Habana since last year. de Jongh is a good strike runner, Lambie and Jantjies are exciting attacking playmaking 10s in the vein of Cooper and Beale, and will threaten the line much more than Morne Steyn. Writing off that team would exhibit as much hubris as 2007, when their B team almost beat us!

 

[#1 Tah]

Smit at #3, worked last time! :fishing

 

[Richo]

Off topic, but what is with the "S100" from our SA friends? I get the sour grapes that it wasn't another SA side that got the nod, but it's kinda lame. Is 15 really that much larger a number than 14?

 

[Lee Enfield]

The ARU should just respond in kind and send a B team to Soth Africa, pretty simple. If the other two Tri nation countries feel their top players could do with a break after a long S15 season, then so should we.

 

[Mank]

Off topic, but what is with the "S100" from our SA friends? I get the sour grapes that it wasn't another SA side that got the nod, but it's kinda lame. Is 15 really that much larger a number than 14?

With the conference system it never could be another SA side, so that's not it. I'm not sure people are fully aware of the significance of the Currie Cup in a rugby player / fan's life in SA. You grew up watching this tournament. Weekends were spent packing people into cars, watching huge battles at full stadiums, followed by BBQs and socialising on the fields afterwards. Thousands and thousands of people socialising. With sporting isolation that was all people had in terms of rugby, it was the pinnacle. To see this tournament continually being eroded because of an ever expanding super rugby comp doesn't sit well. Not sure if that makes more sense?

 

[Set piece magic]

or we could put out our A team and take the tri nations for the first time since 2001, and get some much needed silverware in our cabnet....

 

[waratahjesus]

SANZAR should just nit run the tri nations during world cup years, let the unions organize themselves so there is no meaningless silverware on offer

 

[maxdacat]

The ARU has only just questioned the September-October timing of RWC,

Not sure i agree that in a world cup year the local comps should be unaffected. I think going from S15 straight into the RWC would be ideal (after a month or two rest). What we have this year is the best club comp in the world, the best of the best in the tri-nations THEN the world cup. I never thought I would be complaining about TOO much rugby

 

[Nusadan]

SANZAR should just nit run the tri nations during world cup years, let the unions organize themselves so there is no meaningless silverware on offer

Agreed, however as we have read before, the ARU is facing the prospect of a loss this year due the no usual November internationals helping to fill its coffers...it seems that the IRB is not very forthcoming in making up the drop in the member unions' revenue despite huge television rights etc it receives from the RWC...

So we are stuck with Quad (or Four, what with Argies coming in next year) Nations then in subsequent RWC years...

 

[BDA]

Don't! The day SA actually fields its '2nd' XV they'll start beating us again.

An absolute misnomer. In some positions the Boks have great depth (mostly in the forwards) and perhaps some 2nd choice players are better than the first choice players (Alberts, BDP, Bekker, JDJ come to mind) But some position the depth is not that good. Outside of 7 they lack a world class fetcher. (Burger is no fetcher imo). In the backs the quality falls away pretty kick.

I'd love to see their 2nd choice backline try to contain the Wallabies' best. They'll be embarrassed

 

[BDA]

Sorry i meant to write "Outside of Brussow the lack a world class fetcher"

 

[Groucho]

The ARU should just respond in kind and send a B team to Soth Africa, pretty simple. If the other two Tri nation countries feel their top players could do with a break after a long S15 season, then so should we.

What is the benefit to us of doing that?