Aussies just won’t let it go by Dan Retief
Posted on 29 June 2007 - 05:04
You would think Australian rugby has a bigger fish to fry -- an All Black one -- but on Thursday the skillet was once again being warmed to fry the Springboks.
John O’Neill marked his return to the ARU for a second spell as chief executive with a stinging broadside at SA Rugby over Jake White’s decision to tour with a weakened side.
Speaking at the aptly named Weary Dunlop lunch in Melbourne -- where the Wallabies on Saturday take on the All Blacks at the MCG -- O’Neill proclaimed his disgust at the fact that so many top Springboks were left at home.
O’Neill, whose remarks were given top-of-the-page coverage in all three Sydney morning newspapers, "The Sydney Morning Herald", “The Daily Telegraph” and “The Australian,” said the SA Rugby Union had been disrespectful to the ARU, SANZAR, broadcasters, sponsors and local spectators.
He added that if visiting teams kept sending B-grade line-ups to Australia it may be better to end inbound tours and instead play an expanded Super rugby competition through June and July -- to the obvious delight of his Melbourne audience, the city which lost out to Perth when Australia’s fourth Super team was launched.
O’Neill said he was “very angry” about the Springbok stance, adding that South Africa’s response to a letter of complaint from ARU chairman Peter McGrath was “very unsatisfactory”.
“They were challenging us to challenge their medical opinion. They were saying to us that, ‘how could you tell us what the physical states of our players are?’” O’Neill is quoted as saying. “To a certain extent they have boxed us in. And I will be suggesting when they’re here, that we have some private, definitive discussions about the damage this had done to Australian rugby’s reputation.
“Broadcasters, sponsors and the fans have relied in good faith on a contest that involved the best Australia and South Africa has to offer. If this was a normal commercial transaction and one party has arguably not met their part of the bargain, and it cost the other party money, you would be looking at some claim for damages.
“That’s not the rugby way. And I accept that. But I think the quantification of the financial damage, and the reputational (sic) damage to the ARU has to be spelt out to them.”
O’Neill said the ARU expected to lose more than $200 000 in revenue because of spectator backlash to an understrength Springbok side for the Telstra Stadium Tri-Nations match on July 7.
“We need to explain to them that in a market like ours, with such a selection of sporting content from which to choose, they can’t let us down like that. I would have expected more from South Africa considering the value of our relationship. We supported their return to the game in 1992. We’ve supported them on transformation issues more than any other country. At its worst, this is a very cynical sign of disrespect for the SANZAR relationship.”
According to the “Sydney Morning Herald” some ARU officials are pondering whether the Springboks should finally be cast aside, the Tri-Nations dismantled and Australia focus on playing New Zealand more times each season -- obviously oblivious to the fact that South Africa, in terms of crowds and financial clout, is the strongest of the three SANZAR partners.
Go back and read zeb's post. Then read mine again. 
