Spears stay in Currie Cup
25 Apr 2006
Saru has again invited the Southern Spears to play in an eight-team Absa Currie Cup this year.
The SA Rugby board on Tuesday decided to keep the current Currie Cup format that sees the big five unions, the Spears and two qualifiers from the Vodacom Cup competing in the Premier Division.
On this basis, Griquas won’t play Currie Cup rugby this year. The Kimberley side was forced to release several key players to the Cheetahs for the Vodacom Super 14, and haven’t performed well in the Vodacom Cup as a result. Griquas are also without players who are currently overseas, but had planned to return for the Currie Cup. They now plan to take Saru to court.
However, the Spears have been given a golden opportunity to build themselves into a team worthy of Super 14 participation.
“As we retain the format, we expect the Southern Spears to participate so as to help their side prepare themselves for bigger leagues,” said SA Rugby board chairman Mpumelelo Tshume.
SWD, EP and Border will meet on Saturday to decide whether the Spears will accept the invitation to play in the Currie Cup, a decision that should be a formality considering the Eagles, Elephants and Bulldogs are rooted to the bottom of the Vodacom Cup log.
The board also confirmed that PE will stage their Springbok Test match against Scotland in June after fears that financial problems at the EPRFU would see it given to Bloemfontein. Rustenburg will also keep its Tri-Nations Test match against the All Blacks.
Finally, the board announced that it will take steps to rectify shortcomings in SA’s Super 14 sides, as results on the field were “far below expectation”.
“Clearly our sides have not reached the expected level of play in the Super series,” said Tshume. “The performance has generally been far below expectation. Something is wrong – and it is our duty as SA Rugby to take the necessary steps to make sure this does not happen again.”
Practical steps will be announced shortly, with a group of experts taking charge of a remedial programme.
By Simon Borchardt
81 Comments
25 Apr 2006, 18:14 pm
how can they leave it up to the 3 provinces to decide whether they enter as one or 3 teams.
I’d bet good money on them opting to put in 3.
25 Apr 2006, 18:21 pm
Sien heeltemal griekwas se probleem in…van al die “kleiner” unies, het hul by verre die meeste spelers wat nie in die vodacom cup in aksie was nie.
Dit gan dan nou weer beteken lat spelers soos Frans Viljoen, Gareth Krause, Tiaan Liebenberg(!!!!) ens nie eers gaan curiebeker speel nie… hul volgende “groot” rugby is dan eers weer in die super 14 volgende jaar!
Ek is regtig jammer vir griekwas en sy spelers!
Cheers
25 Apr 2006, 18:28 pm
Darn.
Missed the Dragons.
25 Apr 2006, 18:47 pm
I also understand Griekwas’ problem but we need to get to the end of this system struggle sooner rather than later. SARU can’t keep everone happy all the time. The new system makes sense. I do not ever want to see a CC again where the big professional unions are forced to play the small semi-professional unions on a regular basis. It makes for poor viewing and it degrades the quality of rugby in SA.
25 Apr 2006, 18:49 pm
Munikbooi
They’ve only been given the choice to compete as The Spears not as 3 seperate unions as they didn’t qualify.
Something also needs to be done to eliminate the problem that Griquas have. It’s similar to the reason why the Spears will never get a competitive team under the current format. The major S14 franchise unions will always attract the best players from the smaller unions. We’ve seen how the unions offer contracts to the top players with the incentive that they’ll have a better chance of S14 selection.
If the Spears are to be competitive they need to be able to offer S14 contracts to players in other franchises. Until they can they will never retain or acquire sufficient top quality players to be successful.
25 Apr 2006, 19:03 pm
Right you are David.
If the Spears do not participate in the CC, none of the three feeder unions will as they have not qualified.
The problem I do have though is that a major, and very important decision was left for so late yet again?!
As far as I know, this motion was tabled last year already, so what case does Griquas have.
Look I feel for them and I believe, as the one small union who has always performed well in the CC, they are hard done by with this deal.
All fingers point to Saru yet again for leaving a decision as major as the CC structure so late, the competition is around the corner!!!
Good news about PE keeping the test though.
I must be honest, I believed that Saru will go back to the 14 team system, this is a surprise.
25 Apr 2006, 19:05 pm
True kaballas, but I’m sure that if Griquas is denied Currie cup participation, (and yours truly will indeed cry long tears if that happens) these individuals are likely to find greener pastures fast.
25 Apr 2006, 19:05 pm
I believe a system were the top two teams of last years CC would have been a fairer call, but then again you will have the VC teams screaming blue murder – and it will also mean the VC means even less than it does now and has absolutely no incentive.
25 Apr 2006, 19:06 pm
By that I mean of course the top two teams of the smaller unions but I guess that is obvious from my post.
25 Apr 2006, 19:16 pm
So what happened to the Spears proposal of playing the bottom SA team in a series of 3 games to decide who plays in S14 next year?
Is Saru scared Ellis Park will only have soccer games there next season?
25 Apr 2006, 19:22 pm
The SPARES DONT belong in CC..but maybe SARU has a plan – if the SPARES fail well and properly the point was made that they be shut down..
Interesting now – which players play for the SPARES – the current contracted clowns or players from the 3 Unions..or a mix..and if it is a mix or players from the 3 unions, what happens to the current contracted players?? A nice royal fight!!
And I feel sorry 4 Griekwas – they are MUCH more deserving than SPARES…same goes for Boland..
THis scrap is FAR from over!
25 Apr 2006, 19:30 pm
O yes and the fight between the 3 EC unions that started bout who has the right to present matches and be home base will roll over – and the SPARES will have no hometown but play their home cc matches at 3 different venues – so home games will actually be away games!
Nice royal mess…
25 Apr 2006, 19:33 pm
I haven’t showered for days.
25 Apr 2006, 19:37 pm
Skim dont worry they are promoting a new cream at a convention in Cape Town this week…
25 Apr 2006, 19:41 pm
Pissant – Griekwas gripe is bout the rules to qualify that was only decided this year after they planned ahead for 2006, bearing in made the available rules on the table. SARU makes the rules as the game goes along…
If everybody else had to qualify via VC, why not the SPARES??And what better stepping stone the sPARES would have had to prove themselves..
My guess??GReikwas has a good case and the court is going to send SARU back to rethink, and that will be even closer to cc kickoff!
25 Apr 2006, 19:43 pm
capeflats,
not going to happen.
the proposal mckeever sent through to Saru has been officially pulled back by the spears management, aparently mckeever did not have the approval from the spears board to make such a proposal in the first place.
saru has also acknowledged that they wont entertain the proposal in any way or form.
the relegation match won’t happen.
griquas threatened court action, wonder if they will go ahead?
simon, you guys going to get a reaction from griquas rugby union?
25 Apr 2006, 19:46 pm
b4,
the motion – the CC structure is from last year already.
but the royal ****-up which is saru going back on agreements and changing things at the last minute, is what is the problem here.
griquas has a strong case, cause i also believe that they were robbed in the VC.
obviously they have no say as to who rassie wants for the S14, and the players will obbviously want to play S14 rather than VC.
the stormers also has 2 or 3 griquas players if memory serves.
the griquas threat has been around for a while now, saru cleverly delayed this till virtually the kick-off of the CC, so unless a urgent court interdict prevents saru from going ahead with this, griquas is fighting a losing battle.
25 Apr 2006, 19:48 pm
another day in sa rugby….
25 Apr 2006, 19:52 pm
The Griekwas case comes up in court tomorrow if I am correct = they applied for it to be heard urgently and got it on the court roll
But I feel even MORE for BOLAND – there is a union desrving of place in the cc as they do well and really bring lots of good players and have a very representative team!
25 Apr 2006, 19:53 pm
Home grown representative team I must say, from their own talent pool!
25 Apr 2006, 19:53 pm
The whole issue with the Spears should have **** all to do with which union deserves a franchise. Performance by the various unions has fluctuated over the years.
The decision should be based on what is good for SA rugby. For me that means that each region should have a franchise that provides a focal point for players and supporters.
If it doesn’t exist, then it’s up to SARU to ensure that it does otherwise we end up with the common mistake of refusing to advertise because the market doesn’t buy our product.
I reckon that the whole union structure needs to be overhauled. The Spears are a good example of what’s wrong. Why should the Eagles and Border exist as seperate unions at the highest level? It doesn’t make sense.
Hopefully, we will see a rationalisation of the provincial unions to ensure that resources are employed for the benefit of SA rugby rather than the parochial egos of local administrators.
25 Apr 2006, 19:58 pm
All 14 unions should play in cc on a S14 principle..
The 2 years we had it that way [1997 and 98] produced VERY good cc rugby with semi places up for grabs till the last sat of round robin matches! Who remebers that Phil Pretoius’ Falcons were to decide the semis iin the last match of 1997
An intense 15 week cc competition will lift the standard for sure, Boks or no Boks
25 Apr 2006, 20:19 pm
gents,
i hear what you say.
but then for your suggestions to work, try and have a look at who has a finger in which pie, and effectively, WHO runs saru and a lot of things will become extremely clear.
i believe we are looking at the wrong area or point for answers.
try and figure out who is responsible for what, then ask the questions you are asking.
b4,
if that is the case, the court case, expect a lot of **** to hit more than 1 fan in the next couple of days.
25 Apr 2006, 20:28 pm
pissant
I don’t think I’m looking at the wrong place for answers. I do agree with you that because of vested interest those answers have little chance of seeing the light of day.
The chance of rugby producing it’s own FW de Klerks who will give up power for the greater good is a forlorn hope.
25 Apr 2006, 20:34 pm
oh and b4,
when you highlight un-earthing local talent, do you actually know how many clubs are registered to certain unions?
boland has a fair argument.
but if you consider that border alone has 243 registered clubs within the union, and a union like the falcons have 19, you have to start asking the question: where does all this so called ‘talent’ you refer to come from?
put that in perspective, border, if they only have 30 registered players per club (just for argument’s sake) that means that we have 7290 rugby players at border and only 570 at the falcons.
now who would you invest time and money in to develop rugby talent looking at those figures?
and forget transformation, i am talking about a simple numbers game here. the chances of finding 150 (S14 players if we assume every franchise has a squad of 30) quality players is much better within border don’t you think?
then ask the question, why is saru not investing more time and money into border?
but more importantly, if they had rugby’s best interest at heart (to un-earth talent to make us a world power again) which area gives you the best opportunity to do this, a union with 600 players, or a union with 8000?
you live in namibia, you should know first-hand what bad governance does to a rich rugby nation.
25 Apr 2006, 20:36 pm
i agree david,
but the question i have started to ask myself, is who stands to lose what if certain things happen.
25 Apr 2006, 20:37 pm
btw, post 25, i would use the same argument for griquas.
25 Apr 2006, 21:02 pm
pa
That’s an easy question to answer. The presidents of the major unions.
Tactically, the way to outflank them is for the smaller unions, who are in a majority, to agree to an entrenched shareholding in a new structure.
We either need SACOB to genuinely intervene or for a rugby CODESA.
25 Apr 2006, 21:03 pm
Sorry, I think that should read SAFCOS.
25 Apr 2006, 21:20 pm
exactly david,
but why doesn’t it happen?
25 Apr 2006, 21:21 pm
you have to ask as-well, who has what interests in the unions (big and small) in question?
25 Apr 2006, 21:27 pm
pa
Are you hinting that Supersport and/or Vodacom are the culprits?
25 Apr 2006, 21:42 pm
David,
Re. your post #21. I think you are right. It occured to me that either you go for a regional system (and make sure unions like Border are developed fully)or another option is to go in completely the other direction. That would mean a franchise system like the NFL or MBA in the states. Team owners (usually groups of wealthy individuals) then decide where and how to run their team based on bottom-line economics. Obviously they have to meet certain conditions of the league (to become an owner you have to be accepted by other current owners through a vote). So, for example, the Bulls franchise could be bought by a team of owners and located anywhere in the country that makes sense to the owners. The franchise becomes a brand rather than a location. That would mean a concentration of teams around the mid-rand, Capetown and Durban, but team owners would be very interested in developing talent elsewhere in the country (its their money on the line after all). It’s a market-based system that relies on economics to drive development rather than SARU, government etc.
Of course this would never happen in South Africa, but I do believe we should either accept the status quo of government playing a role in rugby development (and therefore accept any weird decisions they make) or move to a market-based, private enterprise approach (and criticise the wealthy owners!). I used to be completely against the latter, but the more I think about it….
That’s my 2 cents!
25 Apr 2006, 21:48 pm
Right, so The sharks and vildebeest in Currie cup ??????????
25 Apr 2006, 22:02 pm
Slummies
I would support the former, purely because the S14 is designed to showcase the talents of the top players in the country and provide the means to select a national side.
American football is entrenched as the national sport. Rugby is not ours, other than in the white community, my wife excepted.
I know the ANC/Government is seen as intervening for purely political reasons , but if the results are valid for practical purposes I don’t think they should be rejected because of political allegiances.
25 Apr 2006, 22:04 pm
Chuck
I’ve been wondering about that as well.
25 Apr 2006, 23:42 pm
Go Spears!
26 Apr 2006, 07:27 am
Up the ——> SPears
26 Apr 2006, 07:33 am
Chuck,interesting point.
26 Apr 2006, 07:53 am
The only way to deal with the messy situation which South African rugby finds itself is to find someone who has the best interests of the game at heart and who is also aware of changes in the country.The issue of the Southern Spears could have been handled far better in my opnion, but i think at this present moment its makes more sense for them to play in the CC because none of the 3 teams that form part of spears will qualify to participate in CC this year.
26 Apr 2006, 08:17 am
The reason why we are struggling with Super rugby, is because we still play as provinces. We basically put Currie Cup teams into the Super 14. Would any of you put club teams in the Currie Cup?!!
The answer to this problem is clear but the problem is people hold on to their old ways of playing, only to their detriment.
This is why New Zealand teams are successful:
- Draft System
————–
New Zealand pick 150 of their first choice players if their is 2 or more players of the same quality, playing in the same position, then that player goes into the draft and offered to play somewhere else, where he could play every week from start to finish. What it basically comes down to is that they have more balanced sides and even the weakest of New Zealand teams are hard to beat.
- Coaches
———
The New Zealand rugby board appoint the coaches, not the Unions. This is where Jake White wants to step in. Were it up to Jake White, we would’ve seen Pieter de Villiers coach the Stormers instead of Kobus van der Merwe. Not because Pieter is coloured but simply and factually, he’s got the better record of coaching.
26 Apr 2006, 08:20 am
chuck, david, BB,
the rule for the top two teams going through to the CC is only applicable to the small unions and not the big 5.
so the wildebeest wont play in the CC.
the 2 VC teams that ends highest (not finals) of the smaller unions qualifies.
26 Apr 2006, 08:25 am
Edwill
I agree with you and have been making the same points for a while now.
SARU needs to reactivate their professional arm, I don’t care what they call it, in order to divorce it from the provincial interests.
Even with all the other ****, combining the two arms of SARFU/SARU was the single most destructive act by van Rooyen during his presidency. The problem, now, is to get the Presidents Council to give up their power.
26 Apr 2006, 08:27 am
Hierdie lyk vir my na een hengse deurmekaarspul. Ek wonder of Supersport nie ook iets hiermee te doen het nie.
Hierdie is egter ‘n goeie kans vir die Spares om hulle talent te vertoon op die CC vlak. Ek sal egter verbaas wees indien hulle goed doen – maar ek moet erken ek weet bnie veel wat aangaan in die Oos Kaap se rugby nie.
Daarom kan ek verkeerd wees as ek se dat ek ‘n idee kry dat die hele avere ‘n politieke magspul geword het.
“Time is a great leveller” – so lets give them time.
26 Apr 2006, 08:30 am
I see that Jake wants Chiliboy. Well that’s the end of Shimange, the poor *******.
26 Apr 2006, 08:39 am
edwill
the s14 is supposed to be a provincial comp. i don’t get your point on that one. aus are playing provincial teams and nz play regional teams. the npc isn’t a provincial comp. please explain more.
26 Apr 2006, 08:40 am
David re 45.
On Chilliboy being the end of Shimange.
Just as Gloucester was the end of Davidz. And just like the new, improved, reborn Sharks seem to have brought an end to Tybilika’s claims that he is the “Beckham” of SA rugby.
Add to that Nokwe’s struggle to adapt to Super 14 standards, and Jake’s selection policy is revealed to all.
Shimange, Davidz, Eddie Andrews and Tybilika were selected for the Boks solely because Jake White got a financial bonus for each black player he added to the team.
Oh yes, SA rugby is on the right track all right…
26 Apr 2006, 08:41 am
David,
Chiliboy has already got a bad knee on him so i think this is way premature for JW to take him fulltime into the big league(if that is what he’s planning). This kid needs time – his body is taking to much strain to quick. To be a number 2 is different than to be a 21 year old wing.
26 Apr 2006, 08:45 am
GCC
Aus only had/have club teams and the NPC was equivalent to our CC teams. The S14/10 etc was designed to amalgamate the top sides into super teams. In SA this was done by combining CC provinces. Unfortunately the process was hijacked by the major unions who merely used it to recruit players from their minor partners. With small exceptions the SA S14 sides are the same as the provincial unions.
26 Apr 2006, 08:49 am
Staal
I got the info from news24. Jake also mentions Ackerman and BJ. It’s an interesting interview.
26 Apr 2006, 08:53 am
Just a thought, to get some heated discussion going –
Why dont they just get rid of the Spears TOTALLY. No more headache. They never were, they never will be.
Pump tons of money and resources into the E-Cape region. Develop more black players with good CC experience. Have a decent rugby academy, or rugby based education facility, where youngsters with talent are identified and trained.
When the talent pool is experienced enough in CC rugby, acceptable and big enough, introduce bigger and stricter quotas in the current S14 teams. At the moment SA teams are not sticking to any sort of quota. For example, the Bulls have 2 black wings and Tim Dulane was only introduced after it was pointed out that the Bulls werent playing along with the agreement. He hasnt let anyone down and has more than held his own. There surely must be more Black players who could do well, given the opportunity, in SA than the current crop now?
JW and SA beat Aus with 7 very good black players on the field. I dont see why, with good developed players, the current SA S14 teams cant do the same.
26 Apr 2006, 08:53 am
david
sorry mate, but aus have exactly the same structure as sa. the reds and waratahs might have been the only provincial teams up until the brumbies but they have club teams, then provincial and then international. no difference.
the npc might be as competetive as the cc, but it is in fact clubs competing in it. therefore they haven’t done anything out of the ordinary by lumping some of the teams together.
our provincial teams should just step up. they are not playing semi-national teams.
26 Apr 2006, 08:57 am
the gimp’s out
won’t work; it’s too logical for saru and the government.
26 Apr 2006, 09:03 am
here is a question…
what happens to the other teams (that did not qualify excluding the teams that will make up the spears of course) for the duration of the CC?
is their season over now?
or will there be another competition?
26 Apr 2006, 09:06 am
Gimp
The problem is that there’s no shortage of top class players from the EC area, black and white, it’s just that they all play for other unions. The EC will never be able to retain players while the other unions with S14 franchises can offer more money and the chance to play at S14 level. Remember, that SARU compensates the unions for their players making up a franchise.
Effectively, SARU are encouraging the major unions to attract players by subsidising the salaries.
26 Apr 2006, 09:14 am
And so are the days of our lives.
Think it’s time for South Africa to find a sulution to all our rugby problems. Expand the CC to 10 teams and leave out the Vodacom cup.
Will that work ?
26 Apr 2006, 09:15 am
And so are the days of our lives.
Think it’s time for South Africa to find a sulution to all our rugby problems. Expand the CC to 10 teams and leave out the Vodacom cup.
Will that work ? The two teams that end last in the CC make way for another two teams the next year.
26 Apr 2006, 09:20 am
There’ an echo in my cage…
26 Apr 2006, 09:35 am
This should be good news for the WP and the Lions.
Saves them from bottom of the log in the CC.
26 Apr 2006, 09:38 am
It comes down to development…If SA has been developing players from around 95, then it has been a failure. Where are those players now? If they were in the current SA S14 teams there wouldnt have been a cry for the Spears team. The spears has always been all about a representative team. Development needs to be looked at again.
I heard a stat once when EP were playing the Sharks – that one Sharks player salary was the same as the entire EP player budget.
That needs to be looked at.
They need to put more money into the E-Cape region so that they can give players extended contracts to keep them there. Decent training, facilities, even bring in some experienced players from other regions to play with and help develop talent and pass their knowledge on. Good players near the end of their careers, like Os, Percy, Breyton, etc. Stop the exodus and develop decent teams from that region. Make it a professional business, with proper marketing to bring in the crowds and get rid of the corrupt lot running the show in the EC now. Its a long term thing. The Force are a good example. They are the best supported Aus team. The marketing they have done, the bringing in of corporate sponsors, luring of top players like Gittau, Henjack, Cannon, etc to the region. Just making a team from scrap and expecting them to deliver immediatly will never work.
26 Apr 2006, 09:44 am
While we are dissolving useless teams, why dont we get rid of the Cats too?
Also keep in mind that a lot of the **** SA Rugby is in, is because of the Kamikaze job Van Rooyen did while in Office. Now the smaller unions are in serious trouble, and whingeing their asses off. Yet they were the unions that kept our BvR in office and gave him the authority to cause all this chaos. The writing was on the wall a long time ago. I’m just amazed that people are seriously surprised that we are in such a sad state now.
26 Apr 2006, 09:48 am
Gimp
That’s what the Force have done. The point I’m making is that the region needs an S14 Franchise to provide an anchor. Giteau would never have moved to Perth in order to play club rugby. I agree that the Spears should attract a core of experienced players, but why limit them to ones at the end of their career.
I agree with you about developing the region, but they still need a franchise to attract and retain players.
26 Apr 2006, 09:50 am
here is an idea;
drop the VC, it is useless and serves no purpose, viewer ratings are low because very simply, the standard of rugby is ****.
there are 5 franchises that compete in the S14 – keep it that way.
during the S14, let the smaller unions form franchises too.
pumas, leopards, BB (VC side)
lions (VC side), falcons
griquas, cheetahs (VC side), griffons
boland, WP (VC side)
natal (VC), SWD, EP, border
play a pan-african comp, or even better, an international comp against argie’s and maybe the pacific islands.
possibilities can also be entertained whether NZ or OZ has lower level teams (under the S14) which can take part in a competition that will run concurrently with the S14.
these games can be scheduled as warm-up games or run as a competition on its own.
the home venues for each franchise will not be one of the big 5 stadiums, but one of the smaller unions.
we have 6 franchises or regions in SA, we all know the spears story.
in a year or two’s time, saru employs an automatic promotion relegation system. not this play-off 3 match scenario – if you are not good enough, you lose your spot for the next S14. this franchise will then compete in the same competition as the re-vamped VC as explained above.
so for arguments sake, next year the spears will compete in the competition that will run concurrently with the S14. if the cats gets relegated next year, they will play as the cats in 2009, etc etc.
saru can implement strict quotas here, not in the S14. not only will players be developed and play against international teams, but our PDI’s gets exposure where they need it most – competitive rugby.
this pool will support the S14 franchises participating (by widening and strengthning the depth of our rugby talent playing in an international comp), but support the smaller financially through international broadcast deals and sponsors, etc.
players get developed and saru force minmum quotas at this level and not S14 – the cream will rise no matter what colour. and the S14 teams’ coaches can pick the cream of the crop.
after the super 14 and this other international comp we can either have a 14 team CC system, or a CC ‘a’ and ‘b’ division with a 8/6 split.
the competitions for each division also runs concurrently with a 2 team promotion/relegation system put in place, no play off matches, automatic promotion and relegation where the top 2 ‘b’ division teams are promoted to the ‘a’ division with the latter bottom 2 teams dropping out to the ‘b’ division.
very simple system, which administratively is not as clear cut as i wrote it here of course, but a framework where rugby is #1 truly developed and #2, the smaller unions have a fighting chance in survival.
for instance, saru needs to take ownership of the S14 and they, with the national coach need to pick the 5 franchises coaches, and also control the draft system which is a mess.
but just an idea.
26 Apr 2006, 10:01 am
PA
The VC is going to be scrapped pretty soon in favour of a national club competition based on semi-pro teams.
This is all part of the acenture high performance report. The first part of the report was to implement a S8 currie cup. The key to the report was that it was in fact possible to rejuvinate rugby from the top down in this manner.
Another key aspect of the report was to re-implement Varsity rugby. WHich SARU are doing with FNB, this year their will be a Varsity Bowl.
The next key step in the process is Clubs and the money previously spent on the VC will be spent on Clubs instead
26 Apr 2006, 10:02 am
Well, that was what the report said. We shall see how far they go to implement its recomendations.
26 Apr 2006, 10:05 am
pissant
I like your ideas. I’ve been thinking along similar lines.
One small point of criticism. If the 2nd tier franchises play the warm up matches, when do they get to play at home?
26 Apr 2006, 10:11 am
tigershark,
i also saw that, and its a great idea, but lets see first.
david,
lets assume then it is a completely different competition to the S14.
we can even have argi’s based in SA, and PI’s based in NZ or OZ to make travelling easier.
26 Apr 2006, 10:28 am
Nice idea pa. I also like the idea of a pan african tournament. I seem to remember SARU mentioning this as a possibility.
26 Apr 2006, 10:38 am
I know they can’t enter but, I’d still love to see how well the Wildebeest would go in the Currie Cup. Maybe base their games in the Natal country, like Pietermaritzburg or one of the large towns to the North.
26 Apr 2006, 10:49 am
I vote fuckemall, let the spears play against high school teams till they can play the game like men.
26 Apr 2006, 10:50 am
oh you mean the men currently playing S14?
26 Apr 2006, 11:02 am
they want to improve our S14 results, the answer is simple, three steps:
1. reduce from 5 to 3 SA teams in the competition.
2. allow the 3 coaches to pick from a pool system of talent.
3. renegotiate number of home matches.
26 Apr 2006, 11:05 am
Finally sanity prevails in the Spears saga, from day one the plan should of been to put them in the CC and then gauge their progress and possible Super Rugby inclusion 2-3 years down the track.
26 Apr 2006, 11:07 am
Spears are poor but so are the Cats, they don’t warrant any further S14 revenue until performances improve.
Spears would at least get decent crowd attendence figures.
26 Apr 2006, 11:07 am
No real men like the natal wildebeeste or sharks side, or even the cheetahs.Instead of starting a fight everytime they play rather play the game and try to get some points on the board
26 Apr 2006, 12:13 pm
PA
Still on that theory of yours?
Wonder if the small unions at SWD, EP and Border will let their players get released for the Spears in CC?
26 Apr 2006, 12:28 pm
Brother with a piss
I agree with your ideas to a certain extent.
I just think that, for the second tier (for lack of a better description) tournament it may be best to keep the games to the same timelines.
So, the proposed SA franchises can make up teams ina tournament that can include Africa and Europe, maybe contributing to development in Africa, but also tapping into the media strength and money from Europe.
Big Wig media companies in Europe may make vast contributions to such a tournament, but only if European teams are also playing. Don’t know though whether it will be feasible in Europe with the Heineken cup being played.
If there are enough second tier teams in UK, France and the rest of Europe it may work out well.
26 Apr 2006, 12:30 pm
Davidsp
They will probably have to.
The 3 smaller unions are not performing well enough to make the CC 8 team tournament. So they either have to keep their players and NOT play CC at all or allow their players to play for the Spears and get CC exposure.
I would think that the smaller unions would probably get some financial incentive for participating in the CC.
26 Apr 2006, 12:45 pm
Piss, how long before rugby has become so professional that there are pro clubs, i.e. several of them in one city ala soccer. London has how many soccer clubs?
So the wildebeest and sharks could play in the same tournament.
How long piss ?
26 Apr 2006, 13:25 pm
BlueBlood
London has a population of almost 9 million.
Premier Clubs.
Arsenal, WestHam, Charlton, Chelsea, Spurs.
27 Apr 2006, 14:06 pm
The ——-> will kick arse!!!
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.