RugbyRebels

Yeah, we'd have to guard against SA rugby taking all the good players back to super rugby then using the Cheetahs as a development team. I don't see that happening to any great extent tho.

To my mind 1 SA side doesn't make all the sense in the world, it's just a bit too far away for only 1. Why not go ahead and get 2 involved? I think it would make a lot more sense in terms of travel, etc. But I like the fact the league is being proactive

I think it's coz 6 pro sides there aren't sustainable. The Kings can barely pay their players - cheetahs can.

General Zod wrote:Yeah, we'd have to guard against SA rugby taking all the good players back to super rugby then using the Cheetahs as a development team. I don't see that happening to any great extent tho.

I don't know much about internal SA rugby politics but I don't see why they wouldn't. They'd want the team to be competitive but the success of its Super Rugby teams will surely be their priority. Otherwise, why not move one of there better teams over

Cameo wrote:

General Zod wrote:Yeah, we'd have to guard against SA rugby taking all the good players back to super rugby then using the Cheetahs as a development team. I don't see that happening to any great extent tho.

I don't know much about internal SA rugby politics but I don't see why they wouldn't. They'd want the team to be competitive but the success of its Super Rugby teams will surely be their priority. Otherwise, why not move one of there better teams over

Of course they would move players, as they have every time a team had been relegated from super rugby. Quite how we get a marketing coup from taking in the worst South African teams I have no idea.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Cameo wrote:

General Zod wrote:Yeah, we'd have to guard against SA rugby taking all the good players back to super rugby then using the Cheetahs as a development team. I don't see that happening to any great extent tho.

I don't know much about internal SA rugby politics but I don't see why they wouldn't. They'd want the team to be competitive but the success of its Super Rugby teams will surely be their priority. Otherwise, why not move one of there better teams over

Of course they would move players, as they have every time a team had been relegated from super rugby. Quite how we get a marketing coup from taking in the worst South African teams I have no idea.

It's a bizarre idea alright. 13 doesn't work, so presumably Zebre aren't going to make it through their current financial crisis... or it's a load of bollocks in line with the usual American, Canadian, Martian team joining stories which follow a Anayi jolly somewhere.

Germany is the latest with a 14 team league and two conferences...

An article...surprised about the Kings!

https://www.alloutrugby.com/sa-teams-queue-for-pro12/

The Pro 12, come watch occasional full strength sides, the SA sides nae cunt in the super rugby wanted and their band of SA players the other 4 sides didn't want.

Perfect.

It's not going to happen. They wave this flag every time there are negotiations down south.

And this is why we have to pimp the AIG All Blacks (by Adidas) around Chicago, HK and Tokyo. We can't rely on Super Rugby to fill our coffers.

Would there be room in your PROwhatever for a London-based NZ exiles team?

Lizard wrote:And this is why we have to pimp the AIG All Blacks (by Adidas) around Chicago, HK and Tokyo. We can't rely on Super Rugby to fill our coffers.

Would there be room in your PROwhatever for a London-based NZ exiles team?

Sure if the RFU feel like reversing course on non-English teams playing there. I think all three other Home Unions would love to have another side in London, but RFU won't let that happen.

I happen to like the idea all the way around, even more so if the third SA side in that article is, say the Stormers.

Jps wrote:

Lizard wrote:And this is why we have to pimp the AIG All Blacks (by Adidas) around Chicago, HK and Tokyo. We can't rely on Super Rugby to fill our coffers.

Would there be room in your PROwhatever for a London-based NZ exiles team?

Sure if the RFU feel like reversing course on non-English teams playing there. I think all three other Home Unions would love to have another side in London, but RFU won't let that happen.

I happen to like the idea all the way around, even more so if the third SA side in that article is, say the Stormers.

Does the RFU actually have jurisdiction to stop that?

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:

Jps wrote:

Lizard wrote:And this is why we have to pimp the AIG All Blacks (by Adidas) around Chicago, HK and Tokyo. We can't rely on Super Rugby to fill our coffers.

Would there be room in your PROwhatever for a London-based NZ exiles team?

Sure if the RFU feel like reversing course on non-English teams playing there. I think all three other Home Unions would love to have another side in London, but RFU won't let that happen.

I happen to like the idea all the way around, even more so if the third SA side in that article is, say the Stormers.

Does the RFU actually have jurisdiction to stop that?

Yes. IRB ules say that you cannot ply in the competitions of a country other than the one you are geogrphically situated in unless the governing body of that host nation gives permission. There's zero chance the RFU will or they'd get a kicking from the AP.

Probs just negotiating position but I'd be much more in favour if it was a few of them or even all of them though would have to guard against too many fixtures

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It's not going to happen. They wave this flag every time there are negotiations down south.

Pretty much this tbf

http://m.sport24.co.za/sport24/Rugby/Su ... s-20170614

Pro 14 coming up?

What in the name of god is going on with Attendance for rugby in SA? They only had 35k in Durban today for a test match. It wasn't that long ago that the Sharks were getting sell outs

Jps wrote:What in the name of god is going on with Attendance for rugby in SA? They only had 35k in Durban today for a test match. It wasn't that long ago that the Sharks were getting sell outs

This article gives a bit more info on it, but my own thoughts are that it's a mix of lack of disposable income, poor performances, and politics (rugby and non-rugby).

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... d-a-crisis

The Cheetahs and Kings thing is happening according to the BBC. Starting this year with details and format tbc butbprobably two conferences. Seems very late to not know who you are going to be playing or even how many matches you'll have.

Cameo wrote:The Cheetahs and Kings thing is happening according to the BBC. Starting this year with details and format tbc butbprobably two conferences. Seems very late to not know who you are going to be playing or even how many matches you'll have.

And potentially may affect the relativity of packages players are on. This could be a lot of extra games a year and many players may have opted for less cash for better welfare.

July 7 is the date, I think, for the announcement of the future of some super rugby teams, so I'd expect to hear something concrete by then.

From a South African point of view I see the logic. Gives them options in the future to either join up properly with the pro 12 or go back fully to super rugby and this way they get tv money for both for a short period of time and the time zones will work for them to attract a decent tv audience.

If I'm us, or even more so the Italians, this makes me very nervous though. It's all too easy to see a scenario where the welsh decide that (as they can't get into the English leagues) their best bet is partner with the South Africans full time and set up something new.

European qualification is going to be even more of a mess now.

If a US team is likely to come in, DC is the best place for it, IMO. There's already a strong local rugby scene, and being the capital city, there's an expat community of every stripe.

I wasnt keen on the idea when I first heard (read) about it, the more I think about it though the more I think a guest team (as opposed to calling the rejects, which they are....) even if it varies from year to year would only add to the experience of the players playing against them. This may devalue their own league if you end up with another team each year, but is there any harm in trying it to see how it goes?

I just think it sounds quite gimmicky. Tom English makes the point that ill thought through expansion is what has undermined Super Rugby although he does also say that they are demanding assurances about the strength of the teams before agreeing to it.

I'm a bit sçeptical but see that they need to do something. I think I just quite like the current league set up (minus the italians and in a dream world with two more scots)