Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
SA Rugby wants 2 more Professional Franchises
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AM_Bokke" data-source="post: 873876" data-attributes="member: 76028"><p>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:</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Just something to think about. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AM_Bokke, post: 873876, member: 76028"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
SA Rugby wants 2 more Professional Franchises
Top