RugbyRebels

SA Rugby CEO Jurie Roux has already responded to the Sports Minister's saction, stating his organization were confident the suspension would be lifted at the next reporting of the EPG. I think you will find that this was nothing more than a kick in the pants at a crucial time; just like last year's threat to prevent the Sprinbgoks travelling to England.

Remember this:

"South Africa, one of the favourites for the World Cup, will be prevented from taking part in the tournament if a court action this week succeeds. The Agency for New Agenda (ANA) party is taking the South African Rugby Union to court in Pretoria seeking an order that would force players and officials to surrender their passports, preventing them from flying to London on the grounds that the government’s policy on transformation has not been met with the Springboks’ squad, which was announced last Friday, being mainly white."

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/a ... ugby-union

Standard practice, just like the strikes which have preceded major sporting events in SA, England, Greece and so on, and just like the political protests which preceded others in Spain, Russia, Brazil and so on. But none of them ever stopped the tournament going ahead in its intended destination. So I wouldn't be making any assumptions about the current situation in South Africa either. They've got some issues to resolve, and likely this is a well-timed move and nothing more.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:SA government has suspended a number of sports from bidding for international tournaments including rugby. Not sure how long that position will hold, it's apparently over a lack of transformation so it may depend when elections are. In any event it's going to make it much harder for SA to win support for their bid if they're even allowed to make a bid.

They might like to focus on transforming the country rather than lining their own pockets, and then perhaps there will be transformation in sport.

Sadly i don't think elections will help. Having ramped up the rhetoric, I don't think there's much in the way of votes for saying that it might actually be an idea not to keep beating the sports over the head when you claim to want their help.

Be fair, Zuma's mansion has transformed beyond recognition.

rowan wrote: So I wouldn't be making any assumptions about the current situation in South Africa either. They've got some issues to resolve, and likely this is a well-timed move and nothing more.

Any sporting governing body will want support from the government or likely government of a (possible) hosting country to be manifest. So this is almost certainly more and represents a serious blow to any possible bid, it's most certainly not a well-timed move unless one were of a mind to think Chamberlain's 'peace for our time' speech well-timed

Well-timed in terms of giving the SARFU a kick up the backside just when they'll need to respond smartly - as they did before last year's World Cup (threatening to pull the Boks out)

Digby wrote:

rowan wrote: So I wouldn't be making any assumptions about the current situation in South Africa either. They've got some issues to resolve, and likely this is a well-timed move and nothing more.

Any sporting governing body will want support from the government or likely government of a (possible) hosting country to be manifest. So this is almost certainly more and represents a serious blow to any possible bid, it's most certainly not a well-timed move unless one were of a mind to think Chamberlain's 'peace for our time' speech well-timed

Please keep in mind that the SARU CEO Jurie Roux is the same guy currently being investigated for embezzlement of funds.

So, you've got

1. A basketcase administrative body where on one hand you've got a puppet of politicians with agendas, and on the other hand, a guy whom you wouldn't trust around money
2. The government now declaring a moratorium on bidding for hosting rights

"They've got some issues to resolve" is an understatement on par with "World War I was a bit of a skirmish in Europe."

Sepp Blatter and his buddies that ran FIFA were a bit lacking in moral fibre.

Idi Amin was known to have the occasional "off" day.

Citizen Kane is a competently made film.

You'll see. Next month they'll all kiss & make up and by June everyone will have forgotten.

South Africa will host the 2023 Rugby World Cup.

rowan wrote:You'll see. Next month they'll all kiss & make up and by June everyone will have forgotten.

South Africa will host the 2023 Rugby World Cup.

Perhaps, it would be one of those just when you think the artists formerly known as the IRB couldn't do anything to lower one's view of them moments.

Anyone with an even slightly functional memory should be able to recall that the South African government pulls these kinds of stunts before about every major event and development - last year's World Cup included.

Might be a problem for Ireland:

The threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain has gone up from moderate to substantial.
It means an attack in England, Scotland or Wales is "a strong possibility".
Home Secretary Theresa May said the level, set by security service MI5, "reflects the continuing threat from dissident republican activity".
The level for Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Northern Ireland remains severe, meaning an attack is "highly likely".
Despite the increase in the threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain, it remains lower than the threat to the entire UK from international terrorism.
This is set at severe - the second-highest of the five ratings used.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36267052

Might be a problem for Ireland:

The threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain has gone up from moderate to substantial.
It means an attack in England, Scotland or Wales is "a strong possibility".
Home Secretary Theresa May said the level, set by security service MI5, "reflects the continuing threat from dissident republican activity".
The level for Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Northern Ireland remains severe, meaning an attack is "highly likely".
Despite the increase in the threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain, it remains lower than the threat to the entire UK from international terrorism.
This is set at severe - the second-highest of the five ratings used.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36267052

rowan wrote:Might be a problem for Ireland:

The threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain has gone up from moderate to substantial.
It means an attack in England, Scotland or Wales is "a strong possibility".
Home Secretary Theresa May said the level, set by security service MI5, "reflects the continuing threat from dissident republican activity".
The level for Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Northern Ireland remains severe, meaning an attack is "highly likely".
Despite the increase in the threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain, it remains lower than the threat to the entire UK from international terrorism.
This is set at severe - the second-highest of the five ratings used.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36267052

What that the risk of terrorism in somewhere other than Ireland is mainly not from Irish terrorism? I don't see how, unless they are terminally thick.

What that the risk of terrorism in somewhere other than Ireland is mainly not from Irish terrorism? I don't see how, unless they are terminally thick.

Does anybody understand this comment?

rowan wrote:What that the risk of terrorism in somewhere other than Ireland is mainly not from Irish terrorism? I don't see how, unless they are terminally thick.

Does anybody understand this comment?

Given you clearly don't understand what has happened, I'm not remotely surprised you don't understand the comment.

rowan wrote:What that the risk of terrorism in somewhere other than Ireland is mainly not from Irish terrorism? I don't see how, unless they are terminally thick.

Does anybody understand this comment?

Here's the Klingon translation if that helps but I'm still none the wiser.

nuq 'e' 'oHbe' bISuDqu' 'e' terrorism pa' vogh latlh puS ireland rewbe'mey'e' vo' irish terrorism? Qo' vIlegh, ghaH'e' SoHbe'chugh chaH terminally jeD.

I don't think anything has happened, has it? & these terrorist threats are not usually too reliable. But if things do kick off betwen Ireland and Britain again, that could be a problem.

Oh, I'm sure the Irish will sort it out by the time the bids have to be officialy made.

Or do the same standards of leniency that the Saffers apparently get from you not apply to Ireland?

Isn't the problem between part of Britain and the other part of Britain?

Or do the same standards of leniency that the Saffers apparently get from you not apply to Ireland?

I said it could be a problem, not 'would.' Or are we supposed to just ignore any potential political issues involving Ireland - whilst remaining fixated on South Africa's?

rowan wrote:I don't think anything has happened, has it? & these terrorist threats are not usually too reliable. But if things do kick off betwen Ireland and Britain again, that could be a problem.

Even at the height of the Troubles Ireland was safer than South Africa is now - you have to go back to 1972 for it to be even vaguely close. What seems to have entirely escaped you is that this is an assessment of the risk in Great Britain - ie not where the tournament is going to be held. Furthermore that risk is assessed to be lower than the risk posed by the Islamic terrorism. Given we've just had a RWC in Great Britain with those higher terrorism risk levels, exactly what makes you think this will have even the slightest affect on people's thinking for who should host the tournament?

I think the point you're missing is that any hypothetical terrorist action on British soil could have dire repercussions for Ireland politically, and might even discourage certain delegates from supporting their World Cup bid. & comparing it to SA to dismiss this is just evading the issue. Italy and France are also in the running, remember. So you've got to go one way or the other on these: Either politics are part of it or they aren't. If they are, then this news could spell trouble for Ireland. If they aren't, why are we hearing so much about South Africa's political issues?