R
Rikeka
Guest
No, not a problem. As you lay it out, though, it`s still bullshit.
Correct yourself, and then if I still say is bullshit and I`m wrong, I`ll go "f*** myself".
Again, not my problem if you can`t make yourself clear.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
No, not a problem. As you lay it out, though, it`s still bullshit.
Correct yourself, and then if I still say is bullshit and I`m wrong, I`ll go "f*** myself".
Again, not my problem if you can`t make yourself clear.
M
melon
Guest
No, not a problem. As you lay it out, though, it`s still bullshit.
Correct yourself, and then if I still say is bullshit and I`m wrong, I`ll go "f*** myself".
Again, not my problem if you can`t make yourself clear. [/b][/quote]
If you read what I said properly, you would notice i said it was an incorrect observation.
A pedantist of the worst kind. You're a ******.
I won't even bother arguing with you because I already know my efforts will be in vain.
R
Rikeka
Guest
That`s funny, as I should be saying that!
Anyway, what you said is wrong, thus is bullshit, it obviously shows your level of ignorance in the subject.
Still, the fact that you resort to bad mouthing whoever disagrees with you (even if that person is right) shows how seriously one must take your posts, though.
I think I, too, will ignore your posts and not bother arguing with ya.
Anyway, what you said is wrong, thus is bullshit, it obviously shows your level of ignorance in the subject.
Still, the fact that you resort to bad mouthing whoever disagrees with you (even if that person is right) shows how seriously one must take your posts, though.
I think I, too, will ignore your posts and not bother arguing with ya.
F
fcukernaut
Guest
....Or you could be civil about it and state your reasons why you believe he is wrong in his opinions.
M
melon
Guest
I start off with a normal comment and then you decided to have a go at me over it!
I might have to give u +rep (yes I said +rep), so you can get some positive reinforcement...obviously something you missed out on as a child.
You come on to this wonderful forum and are relatively new and you feel you can straight away start having a dig a people. Theres no point in it. Seriously!
I might have to give u +rep (yes I said +rep), so you can get some positive reinforcement...obviously something you missed out on as a child.
You come on to this wonderful forum and are relatively new and you feel you can straight away start having a dig a people. Theres no point in it. Seriously!
S
SaintsFan_Webby
Guest
Equally, you being here longer gives you no right to call him a "******" or tell him to go and "get f***ed".
Cool it please guys, I'd hate to start having to dish out warnings.
M
melon
Guest
Equally, you being here longer gives you no right to call him a "******" or tell him to go and "get f***ed".
Cool it please guys, I'd hate to start having to dish out warnings.
[/b][/quote]
I didn't mean it like that and you know it
. Anyway fair enough I guess.
E
esoj
Guest
It is no secret the Island nations are not rich and while yes they can afford some basic things Aus&NZ do have to pick up a decent amount of financial slacl of the Island nations because they simply cannot afford it. This will always be how it is unless a massive amount of sponsorship comes into the Island nations or the Irb invest a lot more money.
S
SaintsFan_Webby
Guest
I know exactly what you meant, but there was no need for the petty language. I'm merely asking both parties politely to calm down. Hence the word 'Equally'.
Now let's just let the topic flow back into the original subject...
G
guardian_of_the_stone_age
Guest
I think there is too much of a fixation on the supposed Northern Hemisphere/southern hemisphere divide in rugby at the moment. In my opinion, the major competitions should be reoriented into an east/west split, the "west" comprising Europe and Africa, with the "east" made up of Oceania, Japan and the Americas. By creating provincial and international competitions along these geographic lines rugby is far more likely to be able grow and develop, particularly for the likes of Japan, Argentina and the US/Canada.
To achieve this South Africa would have to drop out of SANZAR and re-align itself to European competitions. This is absolutely necessary, while as doing this would result in little gain for the SANZAR nations, would be hugely beneficial to countries such as Argentina. The main problem with introducing Argentina and other Pacific nations into the Tri-Nations has been because of South Africa's geographic isolation from the Pacific Rim. By including more and more teams from the Pacific, South African teams would end up having to travel further distances for longer and longer periods of time. However, if you move South Africa to the Six Nations, the door can be opened to Argentina, Japan and North America to set up a Pacific competition along with Australia and NZ. Furthermore, the elimination of South Africa from SANZAR would make the development of these nations necessary and in the interests of New Zealand and Australia. South Africa might even be better off with this eventuality, as their teams will have to travel less distance to get to Europe and would suffer less jet-lag.
The problem with SANZAR at the moment is that it has stayed static while international rugby has moved on. When it was set up in 1995 it was necessary as a strong Southern Hemisphere competition was needed to compete with the Northern Hemisphere with the inception of professionalism. With the rise of Argentina as a credible tier one nation and the huge potential of Japan and North America, SANZAR is no longer necessary, and is holding back the development of international rugby. SANZAR should and hopefully will be only a temporary organisation, as it is well past its use-by date.
To achieve this South Africa would have to drop out of SANZAR and re-align itself to European competitions. This is absolutely necessary, while as doing this would result in little gain for the SANZAR nations, would be hugely beneficial to countries such as Argentina. The main problem with introducing Argentina and other Pacific nations into the Tri-Nations has been because of South Africa's geographic isolation from the Pacific Rim. By including more and more teams from the Pacific, South African teams would end up having to travel further distances for longer and longer periods of time. However, if you move South Africa to the Six Nations, the door can be opened to Argentina, Japan and North America to set up a Pacific competition along with Australia and NZ. Furthermore, the elimination of South Africa from SANZAR would make the development of these nations necessary and in the interests of New Zealand and Australia. South Africa might even be better off with this eventuality, as their teams will have to travel less distance to get to Europe and would suffer less jet-lag.
The problem with SANZAR at the moment is that it has stayed static while international rugby has moved on. When it was set up in 1995 it was necessary as a strong Southern Hemisphere competition was needed to compete with the Northern Hemisphere with the inception of professionalism. With the rise of Argentina as a credible tier one nation and the huge potential of Japan and North America, SANZAR is no longer necessary, and is holding back the development of international rugby. SANZAR should and hopefully will be only a temporary organisation, as it is well past its use-by date.
R
Rikeka
Guest
As if RaR ment it or not what he said... LOL, he said it, he ment it. I`m in front of a PC, not in front of him. So I can`t see if he had a smirk on his face when he told me to "go and f*** myself", and "******" (whatever that means). <_<
Mind you, if it`s a Rugby Forum tradition for the forum newbies to be called like that, who I am to change the tradition? ^_^
Anyway, this is over, all cool here from my part.
As for why I think that what he said is wrong, I obviously know Argentina a bit more than the guy does, so the tickets thingie he said? Not true. Dude, we are +40m on Argentina, we are not small island in the middle of the Pacific. Of course, in the rugby/cricket and whatever other sport you guys play world Argentina is not historically known, I guess the same can be said of Australia/NZ/SA in football, basket, polo, etc, so no big deal (I even mentioned this parallelism on this thread)
Mind you, if it`s a Rugby Forum tradition for the forum newbies to be called like that, who I am to change the tradition? ^_^
Anyway, this is over, all cool here from my part.
As for why I think that what he said is wrong, I obviously know Argentina a bit more than the guy does, so the tickets thingie he said? Not true. Dude, we are +40m on Argentina, we are not small island in the middle of the Pacific. Of course, in the rugby/cricket and whatever other sport you guys play world Argentina is not historically known, I guess the same can be said of Australia/NZ/SA in football, basket, polo, etc, so no big deal (I even mentioned this parallelism on this thread)
S
SaintsFan_Webby
Guest
No, it isn't tradition at all. It was unecessary and has been dealt with as such.
Personally I agree with you about Argentina. The fact that the football between Boca and River Plate was moved to allow everyone to watch the RWC quarter-final shows just the interest the Pumas are attracting. If it can claim some of the funding given to football, then travel expenses should be no trouble.
R
Rikeka
Guest
Football has no state funding, if that`s what you mean... The clubs are all for themselves (which sometimes is a problem, as you`ll see, for example, River Plate that has an annual u$s 90m budget, and on the other hand you have a smaller club, in the same category, that has a u$s 2m annual budget). Players are paid by the clubs, on whatever salary they`ve arranged (I`m guessing this is the same on every proffesional football country)
Sponsors alone support the Pumas, mind you. Pure amateurism.
To get you an idea of the differance, I think the Pumas yearly budget is u$s 2.5m... Imagine the Pumas with the River Plate funding on a 10 year plan... We then would not begging the world to give us an annual competition, the world would be begging Argentina to accept it!
I`m quite amazed, though, that you knew about the River/Boca matchup moved to accomodate Pumas. Google it?
Sponsors alone support the Pumas, mind you. Pure amateurism.
To get you an idea of the differance, I think the Pumas yearly budget is u$s 2.5m... Imagine the Pumas with the River Plate funding on a 10 year plan... We then would not begging the world to give us an annual competition, the world would be begging Argentina to accept it!
I`m quite amazed, though, that you knew about the River/Boca matchup moved to accomodate Pumas. Google it?
S
SaintsFan_Webby
Guest
No, I just have an extensive rugby knowledge.
Although I wasn't sure on the differences in funding between sports. However, growing interest in rugby will presumably lead to increasing attendences for local clubs in Argentina. Whichever way you look at it, a stronger financial backing doesn't appear too far away.
K
KZNSharksFan
Guest
Oh F**** off!!! Newscorp has SANZAR by the balls and SANZAR don't get to do anything without Newscorps consent. Blame corporate megalomaniacs not Rugby unions
R
rugby_roots
Guest
The solution is to have Argies play in a North America, South America and Carribean tournament. ( N.S.C Super 12)
and allow SUPER 14 club teams with the following amount of clubs.
Fiji -- 2 club teams---- Suva City seahawks and Lautoka City stallions
Japan -- 1 club team -- Tokyo Hondas
Tonga --- 1 club team --- Nukualofa Razorbacks
Samoa -- -1 club team -- Apia Marlins
NZ ---- 3 club teams ----- Canterbury Crusaders, Auckland Blues,Otago Highlanders
SA --- 3 club teams ---- Western Province, Bulls, Cheetahs
Australia - 3 club teams --- Brumbies, Reds, Waratahs.
Fiji should have two teams because Fiji had the most points in the RWC and made the quarters.
Whichever nation besides the SANZAR accumulates the most amount of points in the RWC or reaches the highest level receives a bonus of having 2 club teams in the 4 year span of the Super 14.
End of story.....
and allow SUPER 14 club teams with the following amount of clubs.
Fiji -- 2 club teams---- Suva City seahawks and Lautoka City stallions
Japan -- 1 club team -- Tokyo Hondas
Tonga --- 1 club team --- Nukualofa Razorbacks
Samoa -- -1 club team -- Apia Marlins
NZ ---- 3 club teams ----- Canterbury Crusaders, Auckland Blues,Otago Highlanders
SA --- 3 club teams ---- Western Province, Bulls, Cheetahs
Australia - 3 club teams --- Brumbies, Reds, Waratahs.
Fiji should have two teams because Fiji had the most points in the RWC and made the quarters.
Whichever nation besides the SANZAR accumulates the most amount of points in the RWC or reaches the highest level receives a bonus of having 2 club teams in the 4 year span of the Super 14.
End of story.....
F
Fushitsusha
Guest
The solution is to have Argies play in a North America, South America and Carribean tournament. ( N.S.C Super 12)
and allow SUPER 14 club teams with the following amount of clubs.
Fiji -- 2 club teams---- Suva City seahawks and Lautoka City stallions
Japan -- 1 club team -- Tokyo Hondas
Tonga --- 1 club team --- Nukualofa Razorbacks
Samoa -- -1 club team -- Apia Marlins
NZ ---- 3 club teams ----- Canterbury Crusaders, Auckland Blues,Otago Highlanders
SA --- 3 club teams ---- Western Province, Bulls, Cheetahs
Australia - 3 club teams --- Brumbies, Reds, Waratahs.
Fiji should have two teams because Fiji had the most points in the RWC and made the quarters.
Whichever nation besides the SANZAR accumulates the most amount of points in the RWC or reaches the highest level receives a bonus of having 2 club teams in the 4 year span of the Super 14.
End of story.....
[/b]
Not going to happen.
Australia isn't going to be cutting any teams. If anything they want to add MORE teams in the future to whatever competition they're involved with.
S
scuubasteve
Guest
The solution is to have Argies play in a North America, South America and Carribean tournament. ( N.S.C Super 12)
and allow SUPER 14 club teams with the following amount of clubs.
Fiji -- 2 club teams---- Suva City seahawks and Lautoka City stallions
Japan -- 1 club team -- Tokyo Hondas
Tonga --- 1 club team --- Nukualofa Razorbacks
Samoa -- -1 club team -- Apia Marlins
NZ ---- 3 club teams ----- Canterbury Crusaders, Auckland Blues,Otago Highlanders
SA --- 3 club teams ---- Western Province, Bulls, Cheetahs
Australia - 3 club teams --- Brumbies, Reds, Waratahs.
Fiji should have two teams because Fiji had the most points in the RWC and made the quarters.
Whichever nation besides the SANZAR accumulates the most amount of points in the RWC or reaches the highest level receives a bonus of having 2 club teams in the 4 year span of the Super 14.
End of story.....
[/b]
Haha, I love the way you used of "End of story....." at the end there to make it seem like you've just made some sweeping statement where anybody would be foolish argue against it. Brilliant!!
But the truth is there is so many questions to be asked there that you're lucky I'm an All Blacks fan. Because god I've had plenty of practise at asking questions of late.
So OK, here we go.
1. How did you decide on which teams to retain from the current teams S14?
Because I think the Chiefs and Hurricanes fans would argue very rightfully that Otago is the least supported and funded team from NZ. And is also struggling to win. And has also just lost the majority of its best players.
Similarly, how do you justify axing the Sharks, after 2 very impressive seasons and all but winning last years final? Or how about the Force. They were the best supported team from Australia and were the second best performing Aussie team?
2. How could any of the proposed Pacific Island teams pay their players or fund the masssive bills to travel around the southern hemisphere?
As I've painstakingly pointed out before, there's no money or people in these countries to pay for even one Super team. Let alone 4!
3. Why would NewsCorp cut out 5 teams in major metropolitan areas, with big fan bases and wealthy consumer markets for Island teams with only a few fans, who have no expendable income for pay TV and no target market for TV advertising?
Finally, I do agree with the idea of a Japanese team in there mate. I know that your thoughts are idealistic rather than realistic and I'm in the same boat with the Japanese. I think they would struggle initially but should be brought into the 3 Nations and Super or NPC levels of rugby asap. Rugby needs to get its foot in the Asian door. Japanese rugby needs more exposure to the top level. How people can support taking a punt and giving Japan hosting rights for the world cup, to help spread the game in asia etc, but don't think they should be allowed into a top level tournament seems contradictory.
R
Rikeka
Guest
Pumas against best teams in America (Test Matches only)
Brazil: 11 Played, 11 Won.
Canada: 8 Played, 6 Won.
Chile: 27 Played, 27 Won.
Paraguay: 16 Played, 16 Won.
United States: 9 Played, 9 Won.
Uruguay: 30 Played, 30 Won.
Venezuela: 1 Played, 1 Won.
Peru: 1 Played, 1 Won.
BTW, I think there is an All-American tournament since quite some time already: Argentina won it every single time (I need confirmation here), commonly by HUGE scores (+100 points), and we never play it with our first tier team (not even the second best team, sometimes)
S
scuubasteve
Guest
Winning percentages aren't the total answer though mate. After all, the Pumas have never beaten either NZ or SA. And from a total 41 games against the SANZAR nations have managed a record of 4-35-2. Yet people are still rightfuly claiming that they should be entered into the 3N.
But you're right in that the No.1 Argentinean team would dominate the other teams from the America's.
But then, even with their top team, I think the Pumas would would struggle to beat SA, Aus or NZ at the moment. But they'd certainly be better for it. As would the America's for having Los Pumas take part. It's just a question of sacrifice. Do you neglect the Pumas from a top competition, or do you neglect the America's from removing the best team from local competition? It all depends on where you're from and what you get out of it. Of course a rugby fan from the US would love to have the Pumas play his team as much as possible, thats the best way for his Eagles to go forward. Similarly, Argentinean fans want the Pumas in the 6N or 3N to help them go forward.
But you're right in that the No.1 Argentinean team would dominate the other teams from the America's.
But then, even with their top team, I think the Pumas would would struggle to beat SA, Aus or NZ at the moment. But they'd certainly be better for it. As would the America's for having Los Pumas take part. It's just a question of sacrifice. Do you neglect the Pumas from a top competition, or do you neglect the America's from removing the best team from local competition? It all depends on where you're from and what you get out of it. Of course a rugby fan from the US would love to have the Pumas play his team as much as possible, thats the best way for his Eagles to go forward. Similarly, Argentinean fans want the Pumas in the 6N or 3N to help them go forward.
