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
Super Rugby 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="fcukernaut" data-source="post: 204055"><p>This is fantastic but I have several problems with it. With such geographically diverse regions the divisions or conferences are going to be seriously screwed up.</p><p></p><p><u>Asian Division</u></p><p>Hong Kong</p><p>Shanghai</p><p>Tokyo</p><p>Nagasaki</p><p></p><p><u>New Zealand Division</u></p><p><u></u>North Harbour</p><p>Auckland</p><p>Hamilton</p><p>Dunedin</p><p>Christchurch</p><p>Wellington</p><p></p><p><u>Australian Division</u></p><p><u></u>Bribane</p><p>Perth</p><p>Sydney</p><p>Canberra </p><p>Adelaide</p><p>Melbourne</p><p></p><p><u>African Division</u></p><p><u></u>Bloemfontein</p><p>Cape Town</p><p>Johannesburg</p><p>Pretoria </p><p>Durban</p><p>Port Elizabeth</p><p>Dubai</p><p></p><p><u>American Division</u></p><p><u></u>Vancouver</p><p>Los Angeles </p><p>New York</p><p>Buenos Aires</p><p>Rosario</p><p>Toronto</p><p>Miami</p><p></p><p>Those to me seem the most logical division make ups, but the teams in the America's are going to be doing a ton of flying. Geographically speaking they are all a minimum 4-5 hours apart except for one team that is close by. Then I'd have to argue that the choice of Miami is a shocking choice. It's off on it's own and has absolutlely no history of rugby. That and they don't have any disposable income. They have an NFL team, an MLB team, and an NBA team. They also don't have a stadium to play in. The team will fail dramatically if they play in the 70,000 seater because 5000 will show up. A better choice to me would be boston. Not only is there already a built in rivalry but there is a history of ex-pats there. There are stadium issues in Boston though as you need a 20-25K stadium and the closest thing to that size is a 44,000 seater at Boston College. Chicago is also an option. Large popluation, ready built stadium and has hosted the Churchill cup. Toronto has a 25K stadium if you don't mind playing on Fieldturf. I can't think of a natural grass stadium of more than 5000 in the GTA. New York is getting a new field specifically for the MLS team which will be about 25K, but again I'm not sure it will be natural grass. The LA Galaxy have a 30K stadium with natural grass, I believe it's the Home Depot Center. Vancouver only has BC Place, which is a 50K domed stadium that of course has fieldturf. Seattle may be a better alternative given they are only hop skip and jump away and have a newly built stadium for their new MLS team. Then you have the two Argentinian teams all by their lonesome that will travel an absurd amount of miles to get to anywhere.</p><p></p><p>Shanghai is a really interesting one though isn't it. We know there are ex-pats in Hong Kong but is there even a little bit of history of rugby in Shanghai? And I suppose Nagasaki and Tokyo already have professional franchises, so rich owners and stadiums are in place. What happens to the rest of the Japanese league though? Surely they want to take part too, no?</p><p></p><p>Dubai is also an intriguing prospect. Lots of money, but it is very much out of the way. They will be doing a more travelling than any other team to get down to South Africa and stay there for a while. </p><p></p><p>This looks mostly like an epic failure to me, but you have to try something and if you can get obcenely rich owners who don't care about losing money then it will be about as good as you get.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fcukernaut, post: 204055"] This is fantastic but I have several problems with it. With such geographically diverse regions the divisions or conferences are going to be seriously screwed up. [u]Asian Division[/u] Hong Kong Shanghai Tokyo Nagasaki [u]New Zealand Division [/u]North Harbour Auckland Hamilton Dunedin Christchurch Wellington [u]Australian Division [/u]Bribane Perth Sydney Canberra Adelaide Melbourne [u]African Division [/u]Bloemfontein Cape Town Johannesburg Pretoria Durban Port Elizabeth Dubai [u]American Division [/u]Vancouver Los Angeles New York Buenos Aires Rosario Toronto Miami Those to me seem the most logical division make ups, but the teams in the America's are going to be doing a ton of flying. Geographically speaking they are all a minimum 4-5 hours apart except for one team that is close by. Then I'd have to argue that the choice of Miami is a shocking choice. It's off on it's own and has absolutlely no history of rugby. That and they don't have any disposable income. They have an NFL team, an MLB team, and an NBA team. They also don't have a stadium to play in. The team will fail dramatically if they play in the 70,000 seater because 5000 will show up. A better choice to me would be boston. Not only is there already a built in rivalry but there is a history of ex-pats there. There are stadium issues in Boston though as you need a 20-25K stadium and the closest thing to that size is a 44,000 seater at Boston College. Chicago is also an option. Large popluation, ready built stadium and has hosted the Churchill cup. Toronto has a 25K stadium if you don't mind playing on Fieldturf. I can't think of a natural grass stadium of more than 5000 in the GTA. New York is getting a new field specifically for the MLS team which will be about 25K, but again I'm not sure it will be natural grass. The LA Galaxy have a 30K stadium with natural grass, I believe it's the Home Depot Center. Vancouver only has BC Place, which is a 50K domed stadium that of course has fieldturf. Seattle may be a better alternative given they are only hop skip and jump away and have a newly built stadium for their new MLS team. Then you have the two Argentinian teams all by their lonesome that will travel an absurd amount of miles to get to anywhere. Shanghai is a really interesting one though isn't it. We know there are ex-pats in Hong Kong but is there even a little bit of history of rugby in Shanghai? And I suppose Nagasaki and Tokyo already have professional franchises, so rich owners and stadiums are in place. What happens to the rest of the Japanese league though? Surely they want to take part too, no? Dubai is also an intriguing prospect. Lots of money, but it is very much out of the way. They will be doing a more travelling than any other team to get down to South Africa and stay there for a while. This looks mostly like an epic failure to me, but you have to try something and if you can get obcenely rich owners who don't care about losing money then it will be about as good as you get. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Super Rugby Franchises
Top