Editors Note

Lucas

lucas@rugbyforum.co.za

South Africa actively began it’s migration into the world of professional rugby at the end of the 1995 World Cup. Migration being the appropriate word to describe what has clearly been an arduous and complex journey. In the world of business, professionals talk of transitions as opposed to migrations. The failure to rapidly adapt to new ways of doing business results in stagnation.

It is with this in mind that one begs to ask the question, what is in SARFU’s crystal ball?
The appointment of the professional services firm Accenture was a bold if not somewhat predictable step. For it is this organization which is a key component of the reorganization of Williams in the world of Formula 1 motor racing. They are also responsible for the report on Super 12 and international rugby schedules for the SANZA nations.

I am sure that these credentials were part of the decision making process which led to the current investigation being undertaken in South African rugby. They are expected to unveil for the administrators a strategic plan to complete the third phase of a transformation that began in 1995.

The key components of this new strategy have been discussed in various forms in the media, but nobody has yet defined what the actual outcome will be. In all likelihood it will be a three dimensional approach focusing on economic strategy, organization restructuring and an implementation framework. The economic proposals will be based on sound business principles; as will the restructuring of the game and the implementation framework required.

I am tempted to be a devils advocate and comment that however sound the proposals, there is little likelihood South African rugby will be able to cope with the required re-organization. This is simply because the current people running the game lack several key competencies. This is not a case of sour grapes, the media has all but confirmed that there are not enough former rugby master minds involved in managing the game and there have been enough blunders administratively to doubt the professional ability of several of the management structure.

In the belief that miracles do happen from time to time, let’s have a closer look at the possible contents of the strategy document that Accenture will hand over to SA Rugby.

The document will be made up of three components: 

1. A business strategy to ensure the continued economic viability of the professional game
2. Performance indicators to manage the implementation of the strategy and to ensure that it is on track financially
3. An implementation framework to ensure the rapid implementation of several initiatives and the gradual implementation of others.

Business Strategy
The business strategy will probably be made up of the following economic principles or value levers, according to consultant speak.

a) The centralization of the Springbok brand
b) The reorganization of the current domestic competitions
c) A management transformation strategy according to government requirements.

The centralization of the Springbok brand is the most obvious initiative required for future financial success, an indicator of this is the recent removal of the Springbok Supporters club leadership and the economic success achieved by its London affiliate. It appears as if the London branch will be allowed to continue, largely because it guarantees income. The strategy of offering one year renewable franchises was in retrospect a bold business decision. It allowed SARFU to use rugby fans and entrepreneurs to complete the market assessment of the initiative, with little or no cost to the organization.

It did however expose the risk of losing control of the Springbok brand; several events in the United States and New Zealand were warnings that the earning potential of the brand should be managed centrally. The Accenture recommendation will be for the brand to remain under the central control of SARFU. The revenue generating possibilities of the brand will be managed like any professional football team. All activities relating to the brand must be under the direct control of the organization. Several less valuable components may be outsourced to vendors, but the most valuable will remain in-house. The most valuable include; television rights, sponsorship, merchnandise and test matches.

The reorganization of the domestic game will involve the scrapping of the Vodacom Cup and the re-establishment of a viable club competition. There will also be a new system of contracting the top players in the country at a central level. The latter is not something new because it has been effectively implemented in New Zealand. When the Kiwis wake up and smell the roses we will see a fourth Super 12 team from South Africa.

The Vodacom Cup will be scrapped because not only is it not a viable return on investment, but it has fulfilled its role of developing several players of colour, capable of representing South Africa at the National level. It will never fulfill the government requirement of transformation across the board. It is played at the same time as the Super 12 and gate revenues in obscure locations are not footing the operating costs. 

A club structure professionally managed and funded by a combination of Springbok funds and provincial funds will be the result. The bulk of the funding for areas such as Border, Eastern Province and Boland will come from the national body. Sponsors will be encouraged to sponsor locally to develop the pool of rugby players supporting the provincial game. The opportunity to earn money to play should double the number of school boys continuing to play the game. The costs of operating the scheme will be much cheaper than the costs of the Vodacom Cup.

The recommendation will also include a proposal to sponsor rugby at the school level, quotas at this level will destroy the traditional values of the game; the demographics of the country will take care of the numbers. Encouraging people to play and funding the infrastructure is what is required. 

Such an approach will establish a supply chain from school boy to national level and will ensure that there are funds and profitability across the entire spectrum. It will also be a lot more streamlined than the current structure.

The future format of the domestic game will see a club championship played early in the year, followed by the Currie Cup and the Super 12.

The management transformation strategy will require the demographics of the country to be visible across the board. The implementation of the recommended domestic restructuring will take care of this over time. What is needed is the assessment of the current leadership and the identification of suitable talent which is being denied by the “old boys club”. Several metrics will be proposed and I believe that if the game is transformed these will become quick hits and the overall transformation will occur seamlessly as the game transforms itself. 

Performance Indicators
The performance indicators will address all aspects of the professional game, specifically:

a) A framework for managing the profitability of the game
b) A reporting structure from national to local levels.

The recommended proposal will include the concept of a “Balanced Scorecard”, this is a business strategy for managing the major components of a business initiative and it is used to make sure that all the components of the strategy are measured and achieved in a balanced fashion.
It will probably comprise four key quadrants, budget, schedule, people and quality.
This will hopefully enable the implementers of the various initiatives to manage the implementation successfully.

A new reporting structure will be required to ensure that the profitable and non profitable components of the game are managed accordingly. Separate profit and loss statements will be required at all levels of the game. Each initiative must be identified as a cost or as an investment and managed appropriately. There will also need to be an effective performance management framework established for the resources employed. 

Implementation Framework
This will comprise a combination of “quick hits” and long term initiatives.

a) Short term profitability
b) Resources
c) Staged approach

The initiatives will need to ensure the profitability of the game; this is quite simple because it is already profitable. The removal of the Vodacom Cup will open up a large set of funds to strengthen the national game through the contracting of new players and provide for the funds to re-establish the club game. In short the costs of implementing the structure should also shorten the supply chain and develop the necessary resources.

The identification of suitable resources will be critical for all aspects. There needs to be an abandonment of the duplication of resources that are not adding value. There is clearly a duplication of certain roles in SARFU and SA Rugby (PTY) Ltd. The removal of these will free up additional funds.

Professional resources must be identified to distinguish between the financial aspects of the game and the actual game itself. There are enough former rugby players with successful business backgrounds to provide insight into the game. They must complement those resources with specific business skills.

Outside the number crunching, there needs to be an investment in coaches and administrators at the local level. This is the means to transform the demographics of the game across the board.

The recommendations will include a phased approach with a core and regional implementation teams. This will be the most difficult to achieve because of the entrenched positions of provincial leadership. The major recommendation will be the removal of dual reporting at the provincial and national level. Key positions must serve the national interest. This is needed to avoid a conflict of interests. In addition the make up of the implementation teams will need to be professionally managed with the right combination of business and rugby skills.

I have no doubt that the proposals will be economically sound, the biggest challenge will be the implementation and this is typically where 75 % of all business initiatives fail.

des@rugbyforum.co.za

Join the SARUGBY news and discussion group for the fastest sarugby news and the most intense debates around the South African game. Send a blank email to sarugby-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Hands up those South African rugby supporters who’s lost interest in this year’s Super 12 competition, thought so… just about everybody. The 2002 edition is now officially closed for us and we should look upon the remaining games as a prolonged trial period for Springbok team selection against Wales. The real contenders are involved in an exciting, closely fought competition – one suspect the original reason for the creation there of.

The local derbies are always something to look forward to; it resembles something of the old tension and atmosphere of the pre-nineties Currie Cup matches. It was only us then – nobody else mattered. In the past few years there’s been the agonizing habit of shooting our own teams in the foot when teams like the Bulls spoiled home semi-finals for the high riding team. Sigh… those were the days! The Bulls take on the Sharks and the Cats are entertaining the Stormers, with nothing riding on it but higher honour.

The goings on over the water will be very interesting as there are numerous teams in position to make the final 4, the only team really out of it is the Chiefs. The Crusaders have easily qualified with their nine victories all be the last two by the skin of their chinny chin chins, regardless, a good team and this one is, tend to win the close games. 

The rest of the pack has some serious work to do over the next two weekends and none more so than the Waratahs, for long the Australian stepchildren in the competition their match against the Reds will be a crucial encounter for both teams. The Reds, simply must win and with the high stakes on offer it should be a cracking match between two varied styles; the Waratahs have played a magnificent brand of attacking football, very much reminiscent of Bob Dwyer’s brilliant Australian sides of the early nineties where as the Reds began that way but injuries to crucial members have curtailed their attacking instinct. Latham, as shown against the Sharks is a splendid attacking fullback and he could once again prove to be the difference.

The other match of grave importance is the Blues/Highlanders clash, both are confident after excellent victories over the weekend. The Blues’ 28 points might just not be enough for qualification; they need a victory with a bonus point for 5 tries but against Taine Randell’s men it will be difficult especially with their defensive record (2nd best in the comp). Laurie Mains will be the first coach to steer his team into three consecutive semi-finals (all be it with two different teams) since the glory years of Graham Henry, if they win this one.

The other two matches see the luckless Hurricanes take on the Crusaders and strange enough, this might be the one match the ‘Saders could lose this year, the Hurricanes need 5 points nothing less will do. The Brumbies are visiting New Zealand and although the Chiefs lack the firepower they might run the champions close and for the Brumbies to ensure qualification they need the full compliment.

All in all a good weekend of rugby to look forward to, the “Saffies” will give each other a good belting - there will be niggle, you can bet on it and the real rugby teams will be play for the higher honour of being Super 12 champions.

mark@rugbyforum.co.za

Rugby Forum Super 12 XV

Rugby Forum Springbok XV

1. Bill Young (Brumbies)
2. Jeremy Paul (Brumbies)
3. Kees Meeuws (Blues)
4. Justin Harrison (Brumbies)
5. Chris Jack (Crusaders)
6. Richard McCaw (Crusaders)
7. Owen Finnegan (Brumbies)
8. Andre Vos (Cats)
9. Johannes Conradie (Stormers)
10. Duncan McRae (Waratahs)
11. Pieter Rossouw (Stormers)
12. Paul Steinmetz (Highlanders)
13. Stirling Mortlock (Brumbies)
14. Roger Randle (Chiefs)
15. Chris Latham (Reds)

I feel two teams are like two chemicals and the referee is the catalyst. If you get a good reaction, you get a good product.    Neil Midgeley

Refereeing is a balance between tolerance and neo-fascism - I tend to lean towards the latter.    David Elleray

Players and spectators at all levels can enjoy sport better if they totally accept two simple rules:
Rule 1:  The referee is always right.
Rule 2:  In the event of the referee being obviously wrong, Rule 1 applies.
Peter Corrigan

The infamous 1999 e-mail that was circulated to Australasian referees, inciting them "to teach the Japies a lesson". Can that have any other meaning than "be prejudiced against their players"? 

De Wet Barry was yellow-carded when he tackled a player as he was scoring a try, in an attemp to dislodge the ball. You could hear the ref's words: "I tell you... you connected with your hand to his head". Watch the incident again: If he connected at all (which is not clear from the video), it was surely an accident (that much IS clear from the video). Two weeks later, as Hendrik Gerber was scoring a try, a New Zealand player (I think it was Doug Howlett of the Blues) hit the ball with his fist as hard as he could. At that moment the ball was adjacent to Gerber's face. Had the player made the slightest miscalculation, Gerber's jaw could have been broken. That particular player was not even spoken to. And yes, it was the same referee. My point is: As the player concerned in the first incident was a South African, that particular referee had the preconceived idea that Barry must be some kind of miscreant up to his usual mischief. As the player involved in the second incident was a "cousin" from across the Tasman, any mishap would have been purely due to a bona fide accident, in that ref's mind.

In my letter I also mentioned that those particular referees may not necessarily be wittingly prejudiced against South African teams. It may be more a case of being biased inadvertently, due to their preconceptions about either South Africans or Africa as a whole. In the same fashion as Ms Jenny Bentel has (had?) about "the likes of Mr. Colin van Rensburg"!

COLIN VAN RENSBURG

I would just like to reply to your comments about "cheating ref's". You and so many other have the spectator's complaints completely wrong! We are sick and tired of the gullible attitude of rugby-officials, coaches, managers, and media-people towards the actions of referee's toward SA teams! 

This unwarranted "nice-guys" attitude towards people like P. Marshall, W. Erickson and a few others must come to an end, and SA rugby coaches and managers must start taking responsibility for their players, and what's happening to them on the playing field. We DO know most of the rules. and we CAN see that these rules, no matter how complicated the rules have become, are not being applied the same way for SA teams (Saturday's penalty try was a clear proof of this.), as for their opponents. And don't try to tell us that SA teams do not listen to the referee. Their opponents give very little heed to a referee when it comes to stop contesting for the ball in ruck-situations( how intelligent must a ref. be to interpret this rule?), they DO NOT release the ball IMMEDIATELY as the rules prescribe, and they go into lengthy discussions when they disagree about decisions, with referee's, while SA players are being given rude and off the cuff reproaches by these officials.

In short, my friend, we are not claiming that ref's are applying the rules of rugby incorrectly, we are claiming that their application of the rules allows opponents to play a "infringement-riddled" game, while the other team are not allowed the same benefits. Do you really believe that the Sharks on Saturday lost a game which they had in their pockets because they all of a sudden lost their discipline in the second half? And by the way, this criticism is as applicable to the "blind" and negligent lines-men as well! Go study the tapes of a number of these games, and you will come up with the same resolution.

Chris Booysen

The issue of refereeing is very much a hot topic right now, and I would like to add my 2c worth. As an ardent supporter of rugby, I was fortunate enough to watch the Sharks last week (sad they lost), and watched it again on tape on Sunday. The number of clearly poor decisions made was inexcusable, and even at club level would not be acceptable. 

My gripe is the issue of "Interpretations". 
When does a punch become a punch, not "It depends where/how hard you hit him?"
When is the ball allowed to bounce in front of the halfway line from the kick-off or not. 
When is the scrum turned 90? How long is advantage?
When is a lineout thrown straight or crooked?
All these things are interpreted differently by different refs.

There are no clear rules for a player, and the team must get to grips not only with the opposition tactics, but also on what "rules" the ref allows to be abused, infringed or otherwise.

It has become patently obvious that this has become a problem, and the sooner 57 old farts sort this out, the better. Rugby is becoming spoiled by the ineptitude of a few omnipotent, arrogant, pedantic fools (Peter Mashall leaps to mind!) while the decent refs are being dragged down by the whole anti-ref sentiment.

I read the letter from Jenny Bentel . Many of us are sympathetic, but it is a few refs who are spoiling the game for the other refs, for the fans and for the sport itself. We need a rethink on the critting of refs, as well as actions against those who don't have the ability to referee at Super 12 level.

Cheers
Mike

I must commend you on your excellent forum publication, it is generally superior to anything I have seen on the NZ and Australian web sites.

It's interesting to hear the complaints about the refereeing, in my opinion most of the referees seem quite unbiased except for Paddy O'Brien who definitely seems to go in with a pre-conception of which team will win and referees accordingly.

From what I can see the problem lies with the fact that different referees emphasise different aspects and crack down on certain things.

In the Waratahs vs. Brumbies game Andy Turner cracked down on forward passes as he has in the past, it is up to the teams to adapt to the interpretations of that referee. Smart teams will get penalised in the first half for a type of infringement, have a talk about it at half time and then not get penalised nearly that much for those infringements in the second half.

It is the failure to adapt which results in the high penalty count.

The other factor is that some teams cannot cope with a fast game and deliberately infringe to slow the game down.

You can't really do much more about the refereeing except have neutral referees. Referees are only human and they do have to make hundreds of one-field calls a game.

What I would like to see is neutral video referees, their job is much simpler, and yet it is obvious to everyone outside South Africa that SA TMO's are biased. I was a neutral observer of the SA vs. England games two years ago and was astounded by the antics of Mark Lawrence. England were robbed of a 2-0 series whitewash. The part that Mark Lawrence played in that series was acknowledged by him being awarded "referee of the year" or some such by the SA rugby union at the end of the year.

This has flowed on into the S12 games. Disturbingly, the Australian TMO's have started to follow this trend and so until we have neutral TMO's the NZ TMO's should be encouraged to be totally one-eyed towards the NZ teams in order to "level the playing field" as it were.

Vinesh

Copyright 2002 Rugby Forum. All rights reserved. This e-mail may be freely distributed, provided that the document is left in its original form. Submissions are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect that of the editor or owner.