SA Rugby wants 2 more Professional Franchises

[Leonormous Boozer]

Well, as others have noted, the Leinster side that came to Bloemfontein was far inferior to the Crusaders side that came last year in SR. With that as context one could say that the PRO 14 is the inferior competition.

I actually think that PRO 14 is more at risk as a league than Super Rugby. Super Rugby has teams in major global cities with large populations (plus NZ) and PRO 14 does not. I think that it will be far harder for PRO 14 to grow revenue than Super Rugby in the next 10 yrs. People are mad that SR expanded to Tokyo and Buenos Aires with pops greater than 10M but think it's OK that PRO 14 expanded to Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth?

I also don't know why people think that SA playing in the NH will bring more revenue to SA teams. Everyone needs to earn their own money. PRO 14 unions want more money too. They are not going to give anything away to SA. It is much easier to earn money in Cape Town, Gautang and Durban than Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth. SARU made their own decision to keep the largest markets in SR.

SANZAAR also has the rugby championship, which is the comp that earns the most revenue. As far as I can tell, everyone in SA wants to keep playing in it. SA would have to be invited to play in the 6 nations for SA to leave SANZAAR.

Also, as an American, I can tell you that SANZAAR has very well developed broadcaster relationships. They are much farther along with ESPN than any other rugby content provider is over here with any other broadcaster.

The Leinster side in Bloemfontein was missing 14 international players for various reasons so while the Pro 14 isn't as strong as super rugby (It's fairer to compare it to a domestic league or cup anyway) the top half of the table wouldn't be out of their depth playing Super Rugby.

In addition to that the competition from other sports is significantly less, soccer's main attractions in Ireland are Man U and Liverpool, Scotland have a wholly uncompetitive league and the Welsh have a couple bang average sides all of whom are competing with rugby team that compete at the latter end of this competition. In this sense Dublin's 1.5 million population is way more lucrative than Melbourne's 3.8. In addition to this the Pro 14 is supplemented by the European Cup which adds London and Paris to the mix and I'd wager that the Cheetahs will be testing the waters of that competition in 2019. SARU's goal from this venture is to get into Europe and the viewing figures of European rugby plus the Pro 14 would eclipse that of Super Rugby plus the Currie Cup I would imagine without knowing the statistics.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

The most annoying thing about the pro 12 and now pro14 is how badly Cardiff and Edinburgh under perform.
Both are in prime real estate yet for the last nearly always under-perform and the attendances reflects that.

Also not sure how a Italian team has not tried to move to Rome yet, or at least tried to play some games there.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Well, as others have noted, the Leinster side that came to Bloemfontein was far inferior to the Crusaders side that came last year in SR. With that as context one could say that the PRO 14 is the inferior competition.

I actually think that PRO 14 is more at risk as a league than Super Rugby. Super Rugby has teams in major global cities with large populations (plus NZ) and PRO 14 does not. I think that it will be far harder for PRO 14 to grow revenue than Super Rugby in the next 10 yrs. People are mad that SR expanded to Tokyo and Buenos Aires with pops greater than 10M but think it's OK that PRO 14 expanded to Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth?

I also don't know why people think that SA playing in the NH will bring more revenue to SA teams. Everyone needs to earn their own money. PRO 14 unions want more money too. They are not going to give anything away to SA. It is much easier to earn money in Cape Town, Gautang and Durban than Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth. SARU made their own decision to keep the largest markets in SR.

SANZAAR also has the rugby championship, which is the comp that earns the most revenue. As far as I can tell, everyone in SA wants to keep playing in it. SA would have to be invited to play in the 6 nations for SA to leave SANZAAR.

Also, as an American, I can tell you that SANZAAR has very well developed broadcaster relationships. They are much farther along with ESPN than any other rugby content provider is over here with any other broadcaster.

I am glad to have the SA sides in the Pro14 and disagree with the Crusaders/Leinster comparison but think the rest of your arguments are spot on. There is no potential expansion in Europe or North America that could compete on financial terms with the expansion into Japan in the next 10 years (all hypothetical). So from a narrowly financial standpoint I think Super Rugby could be the better bet short to medium term despite the major wobble in union in Oz.

It is up to the SARU and fans to decide if that is outweighed by the timezones issue. At least now they are able to gather data to try and work that out.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well they literally couldn't join the English or French leagues due to the structure - promotion/relegation all the way down to grassroots. You'd never get the club's signing off on it (which they'd have to) as it is them signing their own relegation/death sentence.
Anglo Welsh cup could work but the comp is dying as it is, low attendances, low interest, sides putting out low level squads. I can't see how adding to made up sides with no relevance to UK rugby would add anything to it.

Call me a cynic but I don't see why we should dilute our leagues with sides deemed not good enough for super rugby, or micky mouse made up teams who want to get in on the advertising money.

I have nothing against South African sides or south African rugby but I don't see the point of adding them to NH comps. For the level of competitiveness and the crowds they're drawing we should have added a Romania and/or Georgia side (as in make a franchise of their best players, So essentially add the countries) to the pro12

Well, I think this is a pipedream that SARU wants. I don't think there is anything concrete at the moment.

But with regard to the Anglo-Welsh cup, wasn't the Pro12 in the same precarious position just a few years ago? Doesn't this type of expansion mean that tournaments can be reborn?

Also, I don't think that SARU wants their franchises to take up a position as a domestic club in any NH country, and be looked at ahead of lower tiered clubs from that country. I think the intention is to introduce teams into cross-country like tournaments, where crowds would like to see different playing styles, and that is the only reason why I think they mentioned the Anglo-Welsh cup.

There might even be a possibility of the creation of a new tournament and who knows which teams or countries could form part of that??

I'm not really in favour of staying with SANZAAR. Money and travel being the big gripes. Am I missing something?

I get that many Saffas would feel the same as you. But I'm not one of them, and I guess the issue here, which many of our pundits on Supersport also agree on, is that in order for us to remain competitive, we need to play against NZ teams consistently. They are our measuring tool for success. And while the traveling might be an issue for some, I have heard that others actually enjoy it, and it prepared players should they be called up to the Springboks and have to play an away match.

Every tournament will have it's pro's and con's. There is no such thing as the perfect tournament.

 

[saulan]

I get that many Saffas would feel the same as you. But I'm not one of them, and I guess the issue here, which many of our pundits on Supersport also agree on, is that in order for us to remain competitive, we need to play against NZ teams consistently. They are our measuring tool for success.

Here is a different perspective on that Heineken: http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Rugb...-blacks-fixation-stifles-our-rugby-20170924-3
I also don't believe that holds true anymore. I mean, yes I believe that playing against New Zealand internationally is our best test, but if you look at the results, we have been failing abysmally for the last 15 years. Statistics from over 20 years ago skew things, if we look at the post professionalism era, we are not really a rival to New Zealand, that win about 70% of the time (which is a problem for the competitiveness of the sport, they have no real rival anymore).

I've posted something like this before, but I think it's relevant to repea.t

Also, recent results also show that the plan of using New Zealand and Super Rugby as our go to tournament hasn't been working out too well for us. Again, I know we have our political issues, but the main issue really is retaining players and that means we need to generate more money to retain players and stop them going north... Actually, let me just copy paste that previous post, it says most of what I want to say again (and it got no ones attention last time).

I kinda agree with this, yes it is a shame if in the future we aren't playing against the New Zealand sides in Super Rugby, but as long as we are playing against NZ in the Rugby Championship, I'm happy. In all honesty, the thought that playing against the NZ sides making sure we are competitive is dated. That was good for when we could retain our players, but financially we can't anymore. What will make us more competitive against NZ nowadays is being able to retain our players when they are at their prime, and that means more money is required, which means playing in Europe. I didn't fully realize how many prime players were in Europe (I knew there were a lot but...) until I saw that Ulster side last night... Ludik, Diack, Deysel, Herbert, Van Der Merwe and Coetzee all from SA. I know not all the teams have this many, but spread across 60 teams in Europe, that's a huge impact.

We will be better when we can keep these players and can benefit from their prime play.

Also, I think there were a lot of South Africans watching last night, I definitely believe the Pro 14 will see a nice bump in viewership from adding SA sides, even in games where SA teams aren't playing.

Edit: Just counted, 22 SA players in the Pro 14 in other squads. 37 players in the Premiership. 13 players in the Championship. 52 players in the Top 14 and then 18 players in the Pro D2.

In total, 142 players in the NH, or just over 6 match day squads.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Here is a different perspective on that Heineken: http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Rugb...-blacks-fixation-stifles-our-rugby-20170924-3
I also don't believe that holds true anymore. I mean, yes I believe that playing against New Zealand internationally is our best test, but if you look at the results, we have been failing abysmally for the last 15 years. Statistics from over 20 years ago skew things, if we look at the post professionalism era, we are not really a rival to New Zealand, that win about 70% of the time (which is a problem for the competitiveness of the sport, they have no real rival anymore).

I've posted something like this before, but I think it's relevant to repea.t

Also, recent results also show that the plan of using New Zealand and Super Rugby as our go to tournament hasn't been working out too well for us. Again, I know we have our political issues, but the main issue really is retaining players and that means we need to generate more money to retain players and stop them going north... Actually, let me just copy paste that previous post, it says most of what I want to say again (and it got no ones attention last time).

Sorry Saulan, but I'm not even going to read that article. Mr. Xabanisa, the writer of that article has a very skewed viewpoint with regard to SA Rugby, and most of his opinion pieces, aren't worth reading, and is spewing of racially biased notions. I remember that one article which he wrote, that was removed from Sport24's site when it reached a 1000 dislikes and over 500 negative comments. And since then I have found his articles to be tasteless.

I hate the idea of us not measuring ourselves against the best in the world. And for some to say that we shouldn't, shows that we are starting to give in. That we have lost our status as being one of the best rugby nations in the world, and there is no way we will go back to our former glory days. And I refuse to accept that. I can't understand how people can't see that. The innovation the players and coaches from New Zealand show in the Super Rugby, proves that they are the trendsetters and that we all must play catch-up.

Yes, I understand that we should look at beating other nations too, and measure ourselves against them. But for me, The All Blacks are the pinnacle of Rugby excellence and that is what we should strive at beating or being equal to.

 

[saulan]

Sorry Saulan, but I'm not even going to read that article. Mr. Xabanisa, the writer of that article has a very skewed viewpoint with regard to SA Rugby, and most of his opinion pieces, aren't worth reading, and is spewing of racially biased notions. I remember that one article which he wrote, that was removed from Sport24's site when it reached a 1000 dislikes and over 500 negative comments. And since then I have found his articles to be tasteless.

I hate the idea of us not measuring ourselves against the best in the world. And for some to say that we shouldn't, shows that we are starting to give in. That we have lost our status as being one of the best rugby nations in the world, and there is no way we will go back to our former glory days. And I refuse to accept that. I can't understand how people can't see that. The innovation the players and coaches from New Zealand show in the Super Rugby, proves that they are the trendsetters and that we all must play catch-up.

Yes, I understand that we should look at beating other nations too, and measure ourselves against them. But for me, The All Blacks are the pinnacle of Rugby excellence and that is what we should strive at beating or being equal to.

Fair enough on not reading the article, but it did have some interesting points despite the writer.

I think my point was missed here, I still think we should compete against the All Blacks, and should measure ourselves against them, but the current methodology that is being used to improve ourselves is failing. In the current format, our players get better as the mature physically and in terms of experience then they go overseas and make big money, which doesn't leave us in a good position to beat the All Blacks. We need a way to retain our players so that we can get player consistency in the squad and build on players in their prime. I believe we are still a top rugby nation, but the current method we are using is failing and it needs to be changed. I don't believe playing NZ teams in Super Rugby makes us pick up their style of play or skillset, look at the Bulls and Stormers recently. It's more dictated by your coach. If we want to play like them, then either we ship coaches over for NZ coaching training camps or we get NZ coaches.

I want us to beat New Zealand, hell any South African does, it's the ultimate in rugby for us, but I believe you and I have different views on how we achieve that.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Fair enough on not reading the article, but it did have some interesting points despite the writer.

I think my point was missed here, I still think we should compete against the All Blacks, and should measure ourselves against them, but the current methodology that is being used to improve ourselves is failing. In the current format, our players get better as the mature physically and in terms of experience then they go overseas and make big money, which doesn't leave us in a good position to beat the All Blacks. We need a way to retain our players so that we can get player consistency in the squad and build on players in their prime. I believe we are still a top rugby nation, but the current method we are using is failing and it needs to be changed. I don't believe playing NZ teams in Super Rugby makes us pick up their style of play or skillset, look at the Bulls and Stormers recently. It's more dictated by your coach. If we want to play like them, then either we ship coaches over for NZ coaching training camps or we get NZ coaches.

I want us to beat New Zealand, hell any South African does, it's the ultimate in rugby for us, but I believe you and I have different views on how we achieve that.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

By keeping on playing against them, and losing, we learn from it. The more we learn from them, the higher our chances of being able to beating them.

There will come a time, when the All Blacks will crack, and the question will be, who will be the team that can consistently crack them. In the past, it was us, and I hope in future it will be us too.

We all can see how our younger generation of players are already showing better skills. And a lot of our young guys have role models like SBW.

With regard to your opinion of keeping the NH-bound players in SA, we have to get centralised contracts in place like NZ are doing. At the moment we are suffering a bigger exodus than NZ, because the unions in charge of their salaries, are not being able to compete with the NH teams, and can't provide as much protection to the player's welfare as the NH clubs.

But keeping the players in SA, has less to do with playing the All Blacks or Super Rugby, and more to do with players wanting more money for the matches they play...

 

[saulan]

By keeping on playing against them, and losing, we learn from it. The more we learn from them, the higher our chances of being able to beating them.

Which is irrelevant if the players that learn from playing against them for three years leave to go to Europe to make more money, taking their experience and skills with them.

There will come a time, when the All Blacks will crack, and the question will be, who will be the team that can consistently crack them. In the past, it was us, and I hope in future it will be us too.

I would also like that to be us, no differing views there.

We all can see how our younger generation of players are already showing better skills. And a lot of our young guys have role models like SBW.

But this reflects what I was saying above, it's all good and well them having better skills, but if they utilise their skills in their prime overseas in Europe, then it doesn't help the Springboks.

With regard to your opinion of keeping the NH-bound players in SA, we have to get centralised contracts in place like NZ are doing. At the moment we are suffering a bigger exodus than NZ, because the unions in charge of their salaries, are not being able to compete with the NH teams, and can't provide as much protection to the player's welfare as the NH clubs.

But keeping the players in SA, has less to do with playing the All Blacks or Super Rugby, and more to do with players wanting more money for the matches they play...

I hear you on this, but does SARU have additional funds to provide salaries to keep as much talent as what New Zealand Rugby does? Honestly, yes money does play the main role in this, but I would also say that our political environment and lack of clarity on Springbok selection criteria also plays a role in players jumping over to Europe, which New Zealand players don't have to worry about.

We can't do anything to solve the second factor, but the least we could do is to get ourselves in a position where our players get competitive wages in comparison to Europe.

I stand to be corrected, but I can't see the New Zealand Rugby Union being able to provide significantly higher salaries to their players than SARU has with their contracted Boks. Does anyone have stats on this? Player wages across the different Super Rugby nations/sides?

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Am I missing something? How can you go from saying 6 franchises was spreading the talent too thin and unprofitable, to saying 8 franchises is now the solution. In the space of 6 months! The SARU will have a whiplash from such u-turn.

 

[saulan]

Am I missing something? How can you go from saying 6 franchises was spreading the talent too thin and unprofitable, to saying 8 franchises is now the solution. In the space of 6 months! The SARU will have a whiplash from such u-turn.

This ->

In total, 142 players in the NH, or just over 6 match day squads.

I think it is still premature to be talking about an additional two teams, but if the Pro 14 reduces the churn of our players overseas, then we should have ample amount of talent available.

 

[AM_Bokke]

I was not trying to be negative when I said that the Leinster side was weaker than the Crusaders side that visited the Cheetahs in last year's Super Rugby (I have a lot of respect for Irish rugby) but I do think that it's a pretty non-debatable fact. That Crusaders side had Read, Crotty, Moody, Franks, Whitelock and many more. The lineups for the Cheetahs-Leinster game are not on the PRO 14 website so I can't double check but I only recognized one or two players. I am primarily a SH fan so it might be my ignorance but I really think that there is no way that one could say that the Crusader's team was not a better team. Now, there are two interesting things about this:

1) What does it say about the competition? The Alpha Bro mentioned that Leinster had a number of players not starting due to international duty. Super Rugby does not have this problem. It is the only comp going on at the time and the incentive of having home playoff games (and therefore not having to travel for them) is very strong. The best teams pretty much always play - or pay the price like the Lions did in 2016 going to Arg.

2) Who do fans want to see? I first saw this on Twitter from a ticket buyer perspective. The person was like, "why would I trade Super Rugby for Pro 14 if this is the difference in the top teams that I will see at my home ground?" I thought that made a lot of sense. If the top PRO 14 clubs bring weakened sides to S. Africa then I would think that the fans are getting an inferior product.

Just something to think about.

With regards to the money. I think that the lack of competition for sport entertainment dollars in the Celtic nations is actually a sign of market weakness, not opportunity. If there was money to be made by fielding competitive sides then someone would do so. Dublin might be a great rugby market yes, but only one PRO 14 team is located in Dublin. The best sides in all sports are in the biggest markets: London, Manchester, Madrid, New York, Munich, Los Angeles, etc. Broadcasters like big markets too.

I am one that is not sure if the PRO 14 experiment in financially sustainable and if SA really has the players for 6 (or 8) teams playing at the SR and Euro club level. I could be wrong. And if PRO 14 gets two more SA teams and replaces the Currie Cup as the development tier for rugby in SA that will be incredible for SA rugby.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I was not trying to be negative when I said that the Leinster side was weaker than the Crusaders side that visited the Cheetahs in last year's Super Rugby (I have a lot of respect for Irish rugby) but I do think that it's a pretty non-debatable fact. That Crusaders side had Read, Crotty, Moody, Franks, Whitelock and many more. The lineups for the Cheetahs-Leinster game are not on the PRO 14 website so I can't double check but I only recognized one or two players. I am primarily a SH fan so it might be my ignorance but I really think that there is no way that one could say that the Crusader's team was not a better team. Now, there are two interesting things about this:

1) What does it say about the competition? The Alpha Bro mentioned that Leinster had a number of players not starting due to international duty. Super Rugby does not have this problem. It is the only comp going on at the time and the incentive of having home playoff games (and therefore not having to travel for them) is very strong. The best teams pretty much always play - or pay the price like the Lions did in 2016 going to Arg.

2) Who do fans want to see? I first saw this on Twitter from a ticket buyer perspective. The person was like, "why would I trade Super Rugby for Pro 14 if this is the difference in the top teams that I will see at my home ground?" I thought that made a lot of sense. If the top PRO 14 clubs bring weakened sides to S. Africa then I would think that the fans are getting an inferior product.

Just something to think about.

With regards to the money. I think that the lack of competition for sport entertainment dollars in the Celtic nations is actually a sign of market weakness, not opportunity. If there was money to be made by fielding competitive sides then someone would do so. Dublin might be a great rugby market yes, but only one PRO 14 team is located in Dublin. The best sides in all sports are in the biggest markets: London, Manchester, Madrid, New York, Munich, Los Angeles, etc. Broadcasters like big markets too.

I am one that is not sure if the PRO 14 experiment in financially sustainable and if SA really has the players for 6 (or 8) teams playing at the SR and Euro club level. I could be wrong. And if PRO 14 gets two more SA teams and replaces the Currie Cup as the development tier for rugby in SA that will be incredible for SA rugby.

The players who weren't available were either Lions who are being stood down for recovery (Sexton, J McGrath Furlong, Henshaw, O'Brien), Injured (Leavy and L McGrath from Port Elizabeth and McFadden, Heaslip, Ringrose, Strauss and R Kearney) or their wives were expecting (Toner and Fardy) so there were unusual circumstances and and a long injury list at play and 11 internationals, albeit not widely known names, still started. So while not as good as the Crusaders by any means it still was a quality side on paper, the performance was not so great.

Again I think you're comparing the wrong competitions. The Pro 14 is more of an equivalent to the Currie Cup or Mitre 10, SARU's goal is almost certainly to get these sides eligible for the European Champions cup which is a competition that would rivals super rugby, in my opinion it has a far more exciting format too with very few dead rubbers. If you can get into Europe it'll likely be more profitable than super rugby before long.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

It's a real quandary for the Pro12 sides that they rotate their top talent in and out each week, leaving fans unclear of the likely quality of their 23 until it is announced. It is a major downside in my opinion and I'll not be surprised if it leaves SA fans scratching their heads. I can't think of a single other sport where this happens. Not even physical sports like American Football.

There is 21-24 games in the Pro14 for each team, plus a minimum of 6 in Europe (so 27-30 each year). Far more than for a Super Rugby player, even if they then play in the Currie Cup and even the Top League I think.

I'm hoping the SARU can convince the Pro14 that less is more. Reduce the fixture congestion and ensure maximum quality in each match, but I don't see that happening as fans and unions will be set in their ways. Unfortunately the "global season" still leaves the EOYT and 6N smack bang in the middle of the European seasons, making it near impossible to find a window to squeeze in say a 16 game Pro14.

In my opinion a Leinster 23 would be the equivalent of the Blues (Auckland), Stormers or even Lions when at full strength (assuming the same quality of coaching).

My hope is that because the Cheetahs and Kings looked so weak before Leinster left for the SH they were complacent (on and off the field) and went with less strength than was required.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

It's a real quandary for the Pro12 sides that they rotate their top talent in and out each week, leaving fans unclear of the likely quality of their 23 until it is announced. It is a major downside in my opinion and I'll not be surprised if it leaves SA fans scratching their heads. I can't think of a single other sport where this happens. Not even physical sports like American Football.

There is 21-24 games in the Pro14 for each team, plus a minimum of 6 in Europe (so 27-30 each year). Far more than for a Super Rugby player, even if they then play in the Currie Cup and even the Top League I think.

I'm hoping the SARU can convince the Pro14 that less is more. Reduce the fixture congestion and ensure maximum quality in each match, but I don't see that happening as fans and unions will be set in their ways. Unfortunately the "global season" still leaves the EOYT and 6N smack bang in the middle of the European seasons, making it near impossible to find a window to squeeze in say a 16 game Pro14.

In my opinion a Leinster 23 would be the equivalent of the Blues (Auckland), Stormers or even Lions when at full strength (assuming the same quality of coaching).

My hope is that because the Cheetahs and Kings looked so weak before Leinster left for the SH they were complacent (on and off the field) and went with less strength than was required.

Lanc said today that they'd have wanted the Lions and expecting father's but it obviously wasn't an option due to the IRFU and the obvious!

 

[mdaclarke]

I think it will be really good if the Pumas and Griquas/Leopards could join the Pro 14 to make it a pro 16. Then in each conference you'd have 2 Irish, 2 Welsh, 2 South African and an Italian and a Scottish team.

 

[User1245]

If the rumours are true that the Lions and Sharks expressed interest in the Pro12/14 then there's surely a big money draw. Dunno for sure though.

Our players are leaving at younger ages so something in the SANZAAR relationship is not working for us. The players seem to hold their cards close to their chests citing reasons like "to experience something different". The other tier 1 countries don't seem to have the same intrepid youngsters though...

Probably also a combination of the state of SA, quotas and SARU mismanagement.
SARU has no control over the first point, weak leadership to challenge the second point, and the suits are too busy looking after the own interests to change the last point.

SR has been a weak product for SA rugby purists since the inclusion of Japan and Argentina. The logistics of a yearly competition in 4 different continents is just crazy.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

My support for this is predicated on an assumption that

1) We do in fact actively start chasing lost sheep and do our utmost to keep a hold on those players our systems develop during their peak years.
2) The selection of the teams aren't based on our real politics or the "rugby politics" of the 14 unions but rather on which centers would be best placed to take advantage of the opportunity given. The Pumas to my mind are an obvious choice but I myself bulk at Kimberley and the Griquas. Even if the money was there to match salaries elsewhere would in-demand players really want to be based in Kimberley? The actual location is also a push factor that has held back the Cheetahs IMO to a small degree but Bloem is just a vastly superior place to Kimberley. This may be my Cape bias but I feel the Cape has more than the capacity ITO players, fans and facilities to take the other spot the furthest whether it be SWD Eagles based in George (a rugby market that is untapped after the SA leg of the 7s series moved to PE), Boland or even a team based just outside Cape Town like the Stellenbosch/SSW/Strand area or Northern suburbs. Cape Tow stadium is an absolute beaut just sitting there and the City of Cape Town will bend over backwards to accommodate a serious tenant. Lets face it, the Cape produces the talent our other teams use in any case.

 

[TRF_heineken]

My support for this is predicated on an assumption that

1) We do in fact actively start chasing lost sheep and do our utmost to keep a hold on those players our systems develop during their peak years.
2) The selection of the teams aren't based on our real politics or the "rugby politics" of the 14 unions but rather on which centers would be best placed to take advantage of the opportunity given. The Pumas to my mind are an obvious choice but I myself bulk at Kimberley and the Griquas. Even if the money was there to match salaries elsewhere would in-demand players really want to be based in Kimberley? The actual location is also a push factor that has held back the Cheetahs IMO to a small degree but Bloem is just a vastly superior place to Kimberley. This may be my Cape bias but I feel the Cape has more than the capacity ITO players, fans and facilities to take the other spot the furthest whether it be SWD Eagles based in George (a rugby market that is untapped after the SA leg of the 7s series moved to PE), Boland or even a team based just outside Cape Town like the Stellenbosch/SSW/Strand area or Northern suburbs. Cape Tow stadium is an absolute beaut just sitting there and the City of Cape Town will bend over backwards to accommodate a serious tenant. Lets face it, the Cape produces the talent our other teams use in any case.

I Agree. But I think we should look at the regions which aren't being represented properly right now. And therefore I'd like it to be the Pumas, representing Mpumalanga, and the Leopards, representing North-West and maybe incorporate the Griffons along with them.

I also think that the Griquas shouldn't be an option. Kimberley's stadium also hasn't been a stadium that has been upgraded in a very long while.

 

[WaterboySA]

Hein I have to disagree. We all saw what happens when you create a team based on those terms...remember the Kings? IF it ever happens and I hope it doesn't, then it should be based purely on numbers in Curriecup supporters.....it should make sense financially or they should just forget about it.