The Orange

I don’t normally flog almost an entire story but seeing a paid journo did it and got away, then I may as well do it too.

A former Manawatu rugby administrator has written an open letter to the NZRFU and it’s certainly worth reading. Especially so as it appears on the Manawatu Sub Standard section of Stuff and no one will find it there.

I won’t comment at this stage as there’s a lot to digest but while I’m happy to see a ten team comp, he does raise some interesting points.

Tew and Hobbs were in Palmy to see the Turbos flog Harbour but that may not be enough to sway the people that matter.

Anyway, here’s the letter in question:

Thank you you for your prompt and concise response to the letter written by Barrie Angland on behalf of all rugby followers in the Manawatu.

However, the points you emphasised about fiscal responsibility, while valid, have a rather hollow ring to rugby followers in this area.

On the one hand you expect unions to exercise financial prudence. Yet almost daily we are being told about the escalating losses expected as a result of the Rugby World Cup which, despite being underwritten by the Government to some extent, will surely lead to more substantial future losses than those sustained by the Air New Zealand Cup.

You can see therefore the reason for the cynicism of followers in this area. To make matters worse, Steve Tew has stated publicly that the New Zealand Rugby Union will make a substantial contribution to the proposed new division one competition (when and if it begins). Doesn’t that strike you as a strange decision?

You have worked in the corporate sector for some time now and surely one of the basic principles is that when any commercial entity undergoes a sustained period of financial reverses, a normal process is a comprehensive review of the entire operation, starting at the top.

I would suggest you instigate an independent review of NZRU head office. However, I would suspect most of the employees would struggle to achieve normal key performance indicators, if the last few years are anything to go by.

A lot of the financial pressures have, particularly in the last year, been caused by falling attendances at Super 14 matches. Has the board noticed this? I ask this question because, rather than cutting back on this competition, the board has agreed to an expansion.

That is a further unwise intrusion into the already limited window to play Air New Zealand Cup fixtures. Why do the Sanzar delegates from the world’s premier rugby nation seem to get over-run by South Africa and Australia when, historically, Australian teams, in particular, perform abysmally in that competition?

When you open the Manawatu books in the near future you will hopefully agree that if the organisation you chair achieves the same financial turnaround, you would be a happy man. The Turbos have captured the imagination of the entire region unlike any sporting team I have seen during a lifetime of playing, coaching and lately administering a game. For the reasons outlined above, axing the Turbos at the end of this season will be seen as a major betrayal.

You must concede that the poor attendances at this year’s Super 14 matches were due in part to the brand of rugby and also to the saturation of matches early in the year.

By contrast, the Air New Zealand Cup has produced an entertaining quality of rugby, drawn good attendances and built a bigger fan base (especially in the provinces). This competition has brought back to the game a generation of people who have felt disillusioned for some time. Axing such a format will surely undo all the good achieved in the last few years, a situation aggravated by the less-than-stellar performances of our flagship team, the All Blacks, so far this season.When your board considers the future of our national game, it should be mindful of the fact that stakeholders include not just the bigger unions which have a Super 14 franchise.

I have detected at all levels an attitude of disenchantment. If you choose to ignore this, the long-term ramifications will damage the game way beyond the 2011 World Cup.

Bill Anderson

I blogged yesterday about the oafs at the NZRFU and their half baked decision regarding TMO’s.

Part of the problem with the neanerthals running amok is that they don’t seem to get the responsibilities that come with the professional game and all that goes with it.

I’m sure the NZRFU is happy to take the percentage commission it gets out of betting on rugby yet is happy to skimp on the investment to ensure that the results reflect the performance on the pitch.

The NRL’s Roosters found themselves in a similar spot with some allegations allegedly alleging (hey!!, a Rooster lawyer may read this!!!) that the Roosters had chucked the second half to so some one(s) could cash in on the 13+ for the Cowgirls.

In a related story which revisited the scam allegations, there was an interesting comparison with racing:

In the wake of the betting allegations, Racing NSW boss Peter V’landys  has warned punters about the risks in sports wagering.

“In racing, we spend $4million a year to have the best stewards in the country to protect the punter,” V’landys  said.

“The sports codes don’t have anything in place to handle this sort of issue. There is no protection for punters in sports betting.”

So perhaps if the NZRFU intends to save on the TMO’s, the TAB could save on paying out the commission to the NZRFU?

Yep, it’s official.  At the moment (until Winston Peter’s brother threatens legal action), the NZRFU is still threatening to drop four teams from the NPC.

Mind you, we won’t hold our breath because as Stuff tells us, the NZRFU have chickened out before:

It has happened in the past – the recent past even – when the NZRU bailed out, under threats of legal action, on its decision to downsize the top grade in provincial rugby.

However, don’t hold your breath because nothing is ever like it seems in rugby.

Talk about turkeys and Christmas:

“The reality is the unions came to us at the beginning of the year and said this competition is in trouble, none of us are able to pay our bills and collectively we’re going to lost $2.5-3 million this year across the 14 unions, on top of $3m last year and almost $4m the year before,” said Tew in an interview with Radio Sport this week.

“Everyone agreed we would not get a unanimous view on what the competition should look like – but we did get a unanimous view on what the key factors for a successful competition were and which we should apply to the decision.”

These included a desire to have professionals in it, so it couldn’t start till at least the end of Super rugby; protection of the club rugby window; the need for a full round-robin, and semifinals format; that midweek rugby was avoided; and that it would all be done and dusted by the end of October.

“You apply these factors and you end up with a 12-week window maximum, 10 teams takes up 11 weeks, and that’s where we’re at,” summed up Tew.

Funny that our mates over at Save Our Teams don’t mention any one of these points.

Why stop at 14 teams?  Why not have 21 teams in the first division.

Perhaps the problem is that only half the current comp is making any money:

Tew confirmed that seven of the 14 teams in this year’s Air NZ Cup had forecast a deficit and that the competition simply did not stack up financially in its current format.

If you really want to save our teams, take your medicine and cut four to save the rest.

I can see a few more posts coming up about the paring of the NPC.

For what it’s worth, i can’t see how the NPC can avoid dropping the four teams because the money just ain’t there.

The only possibility of 14 teams working would be as an amateur competition and we all know that won’t work.

Let’s no forget that while Northland threatened every possible legal action to avoid the drop, they also agreed that the competition could only sustain 10 teams.  Says it all for rugby administrators really.

At some stage, the NZRFU are going to have to give four teams the chop so let’s try and work out who they will be.  As we all know, it’s not performance that counts!

For starters, the Super 14 franchise bases will be safe – so that ring fences Auckland, Waikato, Wellington, Canterbury and Otago.  For the record, i see no justification for Otago retaining a S14 franchise but that’s another story and argument.

Taranaki have enough going for them to be considered safe.  Hawke’s Bay’s success over the last couple of years should likewise have done enough.

So there’s seven who won’t be voted off the island to start with.

Let’s start from the other end.

The basket cases have to go – so that’s Counties-Manakau goneburger and almost certainly Northland (unless Peters threatens the mother of all legal cases).  It does help that both Counties and Northland are at the bottom of the table.

The next team up in 11th place is Manawatu.  They have cool fans (what gives with the buckets??), a lot of local support, and the Cruden factor.  But that most likely won’t be enough to save their butt.

That leaves the following (with the current ranking going into week 10):

• Southland – 2nd
• Bay of Plenty – 4th
• Tasman – 5th
• North Harbour – 12th

On performance, you’d really have to save Harbour deserve to go down but I seriously doubt the NZRFU has the balls (if they do, they will be adidas).

Southland and Bay of Plenty have performed credibly over multiple seasons while I suspect Tasman will pay the penalty for their financial meltdown last year.  That will of course create another problem with the almost certain dissolution of the Tasman union back to the traditional Nelson Bays and Marlborough which should at least please the flat earthers at Save Our Teams.

No surprises but my four to get voted off the island would be:

• Counties-Manakau
• Northland
• Manawatu
• Tasman

I’ve stayed away from the whole NPC death match until things become clearer.

Part of the problem is that the debate has largely been on emotional rather than any attempt to consider the issues in a logical manner.

Case in point:  Save Our Teams.

The site’s mission is nothing but worthy:

The NZRU Constitution clearly states, under Objects And Powers, that the union is to “promote, foster and develop rugby throughout New Zealand”.

So help us to preserve the Air New Zealand / Heartland Championship in its current format and to convince the NZRU that the smaller unions should not be axed…

Perhaps I can help with a modified mission?

To adopt a narrow-minded, blinkered, parochial and rose-tinted view of the NPC and go back to the future.

Naturally, the will want all ABs to play, all games played in the day, ohh and no TV coverage because that was what it was like.

The issue that these flat earthers consistently over look is who’s going to pay for it?

You can have all the heritage and history you want, but at the end of the day someone has to pay for it.

The same people who demand that the NZRFU keep 14 teams in the NPC are likely to be the same who demand that the AB’s play in the NPC instead of touring the UK … when they earn the money to pay the NPC wages.

Save our teams?  Save your breath.

As an introductory comment, it’s great to see a sports portal emerge in NZ which provides a place for incisive, thoughtful and analytical blogs (and also this one).

So big ups to the team at NZsport – now, do I get any prizes for the most gratuitous plug for another site??

While I’m at it, it was also great to come across a decent NZ rugby site (from the same above source) that provided some decent grass-roots analysis of rugby issues – the Silver Fern.

Bartman recently wrote about the NZRU decision to can the Maori AB’s in 2009.

Frankly, the NZRU seems to have got away with the proverbial by planning to put the Maori AB’s into cotton wool this year.

As Bartman notes:

watching the Junior All Blacks is like watching the second XV at school – only mums, dads and girlfriends turn up.

Mind you, over the professional era, the Maori have consistently struggled to get access to their number one team.

One of the main criticisms of NZ rugby over recent years has been the willingness to sacrifice rugby’s heritage over dollars.  To be francis, in the main, I tend to accept the need for change but this is one of those occasions where common sense should have been applied.

Beyond the playing field, The Maori team has a pivotal part to play in the politics of rugby.

The sad and embarassing willingness of NZ’s acceptance of white rugby teams touring SA has to be balanced with the frankly bizarre tradition of NZ Maori playing SA, including the infamous 1981 Tour.

The inaugural tour by the Springboks in 1921 featured a game against the NZ Maori (ironically in Napier where the 1981 team also played) leading to a South African journalist to send a cable back home:

BAD ENOUGH HAVING TO PLAY OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED NEW ZEALAND NATIVES, BUT SPECTACLE THOUSANDS EUROPEANS FRANTICALLY CHEERING ON BAND OF COLOURED MEN TO DEFEAT MEMBERS OF OWN RACE WAS TOO MUCH FOR SPRINGBOKS WHO FRANKLY DISGUSTED.

OK, so that was almost 90 years ago.

Things are definitely going to be a lot tougher in terms of economic measurements.  Gee, some of the AB’s won’t be drive new Fords!

But to risk throwing away the legacy of the NZ Maori in the name of short term cost saving doesn’t make cents or sense.