Solly satisfied with Kings’ ‘trials’
17 Feb 2012
Kings coach Alan Solomons says their pre-season matches were all about giving players from across the region the chance to stake a Super Rugby claim.
The South-Eastern Cape franchise has fielded two different teams over the past three weeks against the five South African Super Rugby sides. The Kings team made up of EP players lost 16-12 to the Bulls and 38-13 to the Stormers in PE, and will play the Sharks at the Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium on Friday night. The Kings side drawn only from Border and SWD, the other two provinces in the franchise, went down 33-20 to the Cheetahs in East London before being thrashed 88-0 by the Lions in George.
‘To play five South African franchises in 20 days is a huge ask, in fact it’s physically impossible to do it with one side,’ Solomons told keo.co.za. ‘Having a combined Border-SWD team helped to break up that schedule. More importantly, it gave us the chance to see all the players in the region play against top quality opposition, which enables us to assess them better. That’s what we wanted to achieve from these five games, nothing more.’
Border players dominated the Border-SWD Kings side and while they were humiliated by the Lions, Solomons says he was pleased with their performance against the Cheetahs.
‘[Border centre] Dwayne Jenner did really well in that game and he’s going to play for us against the Sharks on Friday with Jaco Bekker being out. I was also impressed by [Border flank] Roy Bursey, a young boy from Selborne College who spent a year at the Sharks Academy. [Border flank] Gareth Krause and [SWD No 8] Michael Vermaak also played very well.’
Solomons, though, is realistic and admits the Kings will have to bring in players from outside the region if they are to be competitive in Super Rugby next year.
‘We will be going on a recruitment drive, targeting South Africans in Europe who will be out of contract in June at the end of the current northern-hemisphere season, as well as players from other South African provinces, especially those who hail from the Eastern Cape.’
Southern Kings (to play Sharks) – 15 Tiger Mangweni, 14 Marcello Sampson, 13 Dwayne Jenner, 12 Wayne Stevens, 11 Norman Nelson, 10 Shane Gates, 9 Falie Oelschig, 8 Vleis Engelbrecht, 7 Mpho Mbiyozo, 6 Boetie Britz, 5 David Bulbring, 4 Darron Nell (c), 3 Clint Newland, 2 Hannes Franklin, 1 Jaco Engels.
Subs: 16 Bobby Dyer, 17 Zane Killian, 18 Andre Schlechter, 19 Wayne van Heerden, 20 Reynier Bernardo, 21 Thembelani Bholi, 22 Siya Mangaliso, 22 Danie Faasen, 23 Earl Rose, 24 Matthew Tayler-Smith, 25 Kieran Goss.
By Simon Borchardt, in Port Elizabeth
401 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 » Show All
17 Feb 2012, 13:22 pm
@charo(charo)-297:
Thats farking brilliant.
I mean who wouldnt want a car with 4cough as a number plate. Originality score out of 10.
11
17 Feb 2012, 13:52 pm
This is a very young Lions Vodacom cup team. The average age of a players is around 21, excluding the 6 Superrugby contracted players. The average age of the Superrugby squad is around 24, amazing stuff. No hasbeens anywhere in Lions rugby.
…….
Game time against Pumas for Super Rugby players
February 17 – A number of the MTN Lions’ Vodacom Super Rugby regulars from last season get much-needed game time when the Golden Lions play the Pumas in the Mbombela Stadium in Nelspruit on Saturday afternoon (kick-off 3pm)
The team, an indication of what the Lions could field in their Vodacom Cup challenge this year, includes some of last year’s juniors and will be captained from No 8 by Warren Whiteley. Prop Jacobie Adriaanse, hooker Martin Bezuidenhout and wing Michael Killian are the other Super Rugby players in the enlarged squad that includes 10 replacements for the two teams’ warm-up.
They get the chance of some match action with the first match in the Super Rugby competition only a week away.
The teams are: Lions: Marais Schmidt, Anthony Volminck, Harold Vorster, Robert de Bruyn, Janus Jonker, Andries Coetzee, Whestley Moolman, Warren Whiteley (capt.), Uzair Cassiem, Stephan de Witt, Stephan Greeff, Paul Willemse, Jacobie Adriaanse, Francois du Toit, Caylib Oosthuizen. Replacements: Martin Bezuidenhout, Gideon Muller, Kenny Okafor, Fabian Booysen, Nico Kruger, Garth April, Bradley Moolman, Michael Killian, JR Esterhuizen, Jaco Kriel.
Pumas: Coenie van Wyk, Danwel Demas, JW Jonker, Dewald Pretorius, Wilhelm Loock, JC Roos, Shaun Venter, Nicol Mostert, JP Mostert, Renaldo Bothma, Eduan van der Walt, Rudi Mathee, Ashley Buys, Torsten van Jaarsveld, De Jay Terblanche. Replacements: Pellow van der Westhuizen, Drew van Coller, Corné Fourie, Boela Serfontein, RW Kember, Faf de Klerk, Carl Bezuidenhout, Hendrik Meyer, Ashwin Scott, Deon Scholtz, Dewald Pieters.
17 Feb 2012, 13:52 pm
and the three men i admire most…
the father, son and holy ghost…
they caught the last train for the coast…
the day…
the muuu-sic…
died…!!
17 Feb 2012, 13:55 pm
@RL(RL)-302:
Is that the same JW Jonker who played for Free State some years ago?
17 Feb 2012, 13:57 pm
@RL(RL)-302:
Butch James? Baywatch isn’t exactly a youngster, either.
17 Feb 2012, 14:00 pm
@ufo(ufo)-303:
Hi ufo,
Don Mclean is a true legend.
“Vincent” still gives me goose bumps.
17 Feb 2012, 14:04 pm
@Jeraldjay(Jeraldjay)-306:
hey jeraldjay… how you doing…? you guys must be pleased the season is about to start again…!
yeah… very cool song about buddy holly dying…
this thread seemed to have died so was thought it appropriate…
or not…
17 Feb 2012, 14:07 pm
@willievz(willievz)-304: if he is around 21 and plays as a flyhalf then maybe.
@David(David)-305: Butch, Wikus and CJ vd Linde are around 32/33. Killian, Deon v Rensburg and Doppies are 30. The next oldest is Franco vd Merwe, the rest of the super squad all between 20 and 25. The Lions are the youngest SA team.
17 Feb 2012, 14:08 pm
@David(David)-305: and Baywatch is only 28.
17 Feb 2012, 14:09 pm
@ufo(ufo)-307:
Appropriate indeed.
Capo once again, revealing his true self.
I wonder how many email addresses this guy has
17 Feb 2012, 14:25 pm
Big Blokes Rule!
Here is a perspective on how `backs’ became known as such.
Obviously written by a forward which in itself is quite remarkable. Enjoy.
It is largely unknown to players and followers of the modern game of rugby, that in the very early days it started off purely as a contest for forwards in opposition in line-outs, scrums, rucks and mauls.
This pitted eight men of statuesque physique, of supreme fitness and superior intelligence in packs against one another.
In those days, the winner was the pack that had gained most set pieces. The debasement of the game began when backs were introduced. This occurred because a major problem was where to locate the next scrum or line-out.
Selecting positions on the ground for these had become a constant source of friction and even violence.
The problem was resolved through a stratagem of employing forward rejects, men of small stature and limited intelligence, to select positions on the field from where, when in receipt of the ball they could be guaranteed to drop it in a random pattern but usually, as far from the last set piece as possible. Initially these additional players were entirely unorganized but with the passing of time they adopted positions.
For instance, the half-back. He was usually generally the smallest and least intelligent of the backs whose role was simply to accept the ball and pass it on.
He could easily (given his general size) have been called a quarter forward or a ball ****** but then tolerance and compassion are the keys to forward play and the present inoffensive description was decided upon.
The five-eighth plays next to the half-back and his role is essentially the same except that, when pressured he usually panics and kicks the ball. Normally, he is somewhat taller and slightly better built than the half-back and hence his name. One-eighth less and he would have been a half-back, three-eighths more and he might well have qualified to become a forward.
The centres were opportunists who had no specific role to play but who were attracted to the game by the glamour associated with forward packs. After repeated supplication to the forwards for a role in the game they would be told to get out in the middle and wait for the ball. Thus, when asked where they played, they would reply “in the centre”. And they remain to this day, opportunists and scroungers, men so accustomed to making excuses for bad hands and errant play that most become solicitors or real estate agents.
You may ask, why wingers? The answer is simple. Originally these were players who had very little ability and were the lowest in the backline pecking order.
They were placed far from the ball and given the generally poor handling by the inside backs, were rarely given the opportunity to even touch the ball. This is basically why, through a process of natural selection, they became very fast runners and developed the ability to evade tackles.
But to get back to the name. The fact that they got so little ball led to the incessant flow of complaints from them and the eventual apt description “whingers”. Naturally, in the modern game, the name has been adapted to become more acceptable.
Lastly, the full-back. This was the position given to the worst handler, the person least able to accept or pass the ball, someone who was always in the way.. the name arose because, infuriated by the poor play invariably demonstrated by that person, the call would come “send that fool back” and he would be relegated to the rear of the field.
So there you have it. The fact is that if a side does not have eight men of statuesque physique, of supreme fitness and superior intelligence then they might as well play soccer.
17 Feb 2012, 14:25 pm
@Jeraldjay(Jeraldjay)-310:
hehehe…
yip…
but hardly worth the time or effort…
17 Feb 2012, 14:27 pm
@BuckT(BuckTrendy)-311: Someone posted that here yesterday. Very funny.
17 Feb 2012, 14:30 pm
@>^..^< katman(katman)-313: sorry for the repost! been off the grid, so to speak, i see Bod is making his return soon…
17 Feb 2012, 14:32 pm
@BuckT(BuckTrendy)-311:
i like it…!!
17 Feb 2012, 14:35 pm
@RL(RL)-309:
28? No ways, they must have made a mistake with his birth certificate- he has been around nearly as long as the real Mr Baywatch ( David Hasselhoff) who is by now probably pushing for 60- and he looks much more “tired” than Hasselhoff.
17 Feb 2012, 15:00 pm
Did anyone see the 20/20 against the black caps? My advice to anyone battling financialy,scrape your pennies together and when ever you see the Proteas about to play a team where there may be a hint of pressure(and I dont mean newlands) wack it all on the opposistion you are garunteed to make a motsa.I have been doing it for ten odd years now and have almost paid my house off thanks to the proteas ability to “flatter to deceive”.
17 Feb 2012, 15:09 pm
@Robzim(Robzim)-316:
Baywatch born on 27 May 1981
17 Feb 2012, 15:33 pm
Of course Solly is happy with the trial games! He knows that he is the only coach in SA that doesn’t have to perform or produce results because he has politicians backing him up. The Kings are supposedly to uplift black rugby in the E Cape, but just yesterday he was saying they were going to buy all the overseas SA players, 95% which are white! Just like govt there is no accountability and no honesty with regards to actual goals. Is just another gravy train carriage to be plundered by Cheeky Pukeson and his govt buddies. Keo to get marketing tender, mark my word!
17 Feb 2012, 15:40 pm
@steblooi(steblooi)-319: what is the point of your post?
what part of ‘development” do you miss?
is it fashionable for people to come here and make doose of themselves?
in which world do some here live in, that the Kings overnight must have these black players? hehehe
the prejudice is staggering
17 Feb 2012, 15:52 pm
It’s on!
Trans is here!
17 Feb 2012, 15:56 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-320: Development shouldn’t happen at the highest level of international competition. Don’t call someone a doos just because he points out how incredibly stupid this political bullying is, and you don’t happen to agree with him.
17 Feb 2012, 16:01 pm
@ transformation
I’m probably missing the same part of ‘development’ as you are missing in ‘merit, honesty and reality’.
What part of development includes buying has-been whiteys from Europe?
What part of development is relegating existing franchises full of promising Springboks?
How do you develop the future by harping on about race and the past?
True development would be to win the bloody Premier Division, and then, on MERIT, join the Curry Cup.
Development would include actually performing in the Currie Cup, and perhaps filling your white elephant stadium with enough spectators with a Currie Cup final to finance your academy on a viable basis, not at the expense of the taxpayer.
It would also include matching your success to your philosophy, which might come as a mayor surprise to a pseudo communist, did not work out so well for the USSR, Vietnam or North Korea – finacial viability and high flying ideas are not bedmates.
Reality dictates that you beat the guy you want to better than, not nag like a houswife until you get your way.
Nobody respects a tantrum-throwing spoiled brat – and nobody will respect the Kings because that is what they are, not to mention dishonest.
Dishonest to their own current group of players and to the country as a whole with regards to their supposed ‘Transformation’ of SA rugby… you doos!
17 Feb 2012, 16:09 pm
i don’t buy this south africa is ‘unique’ story… or saru and the kings expect special treatment to develop rugby in an area in which its representation is not what it should be…
strange how nobody here complained about the force…
being created to encourage rugby union development in perth…
being given a free ride into super rugby,
being able to recruit players form other franchises,
being given several years to get their act together (which they still haven’t really) and win a few games,
or being easy-beats for their aussie (and nz and sa) opposition,
or producing embarrassing rugby and results…
all in the hope that they would give local kids something to aspire to instead of looking to play their rugby somewhere else…
ditto the rebels…
but we can’t accept the the same circumstances in our own country…??
why??
let me name the elephant in the room… and i believe why the majority of people who are against the kings are…
the elephant’s name is racism… and the b!tching is largely due to the fact that possibly black players will benefit in the long-term at the possible expense of white players…
there are obviously not going to be any super rugby-ready players of any color in pe to start with…. they’re all playing for other provinces… i’m sure the other franchises wouldn’t object at having to ‘return’ their eastern cape players…!
the point is that with super rugby being played in pe… kids of all colours will go to the stadium, watch ‘their’ team and think…
“heck… that’s what i wanna do when i’m big…!”
who is that callous and churlish that they would deny those kids that opportunity…?
you guys will look for any excuse and/or reason or ‘fault’ with the plan and why it won’t work… fact is… you’re all crapping yourselves in case it does work…
as you say transformation… the prejudice is staggering…
17 Feb 2012, 16:18 pm
@ UFO
The problem with transformation advocists like yourself is that you see everything through racial goggles.
I never once mentioned that I don’t want the Kings to success because they will field black players. I explained my exasperation that they were planning to field white players!
I am angry because they demand inclusion because of a premise to transform, only to field white players. Which coloured boys are going to watch Daan Human scrum the **** out of the Bulls front row?
The issue is merit. You have to DESERVE things in life, you can’t just be given them. You cannot claim to be a doctor when you studied in Cuba and can only pull front teeth and incisors. You have to actually study for seven years and PASS!
The Kings are going to cause the downfall of one of our franchises and it will harm our rugby. Thus the decision is not based on merit, but on entitlement, and that is simply wrong.
If you asked me, strapped to a lie detector, if I would object to a all african Springbok team I would cry emphatically NO, because finally this racist goggle argument would carry no water. Because finally a team picked on merit will satisfy the government and they would see all us white dudes cheering them on with the same vigour we always have. The idea is to win, not to represent!!!
17 Feb 2012, 16:22 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-320: don’t tell me you believe your own spin. You yourself said that the Kings are in it to win and not make up the numbers. That whole ‘we are a developmental’ team is a smokescreen … they are no different from any other union. All that Cheeky and his mates are interested in is money. What are you going to say when they fail to deliver on their promise to have a “black” team, like the one that Boland fielded when Cheeky’s white team was moered in the first division final.
17 Feb 2012, 16:23 pm
@ufo(ufo)-324:
Thank you.
The whole argument that the Kings have to develop players, and retain them, within the region in order to qualify for a Franchise is a load of cr*p. Look at the Bulls backline for this year. Only Olivier grew up in the province. The rest are imports who would never have moved if the Bulls weren’t a Franchise. Hell, the Sharks are even worse in this regard.
The development aspect of an S15 franchise is first to provide a focal point for supporters in the region and create awareness and excitement for the game. The second is to keep talent in the region, rather than have it migrate elsewhere to play S15 rugby. Creating a team which is composed predominantly of local black players is very much a long term goal.
17 Feb 2012, 16:24 pm
Great post ufo.To add to that wonderful post-the rebels were created to give the Aussies a union presence in an extremely Aussie rules.I,for one,don’t believe that they all ever make inroads into Aussie rules Melbourne,whereas the Eastern Cape have a great chance to be successful in developing black rugby talent.
17 Feb 2012, 16:26 pm
@steblooi(steblooi)-323: dude, white people in this country do not have monopoly on this thing called MERIT! get it out of your system that the EXCLUSION of the Spears was done on some premise of merit!
in 2205 when SARU resolved that the structure of south africa’s participation was to be changed these were the resolutions taken:
All the Southern Spears/Kings have asked of SA Rugby is to stand by the Presidents Council 8th June
resolution, articulated as follows:
“The parties present at the SARugby President’s Council meetingheld on 8 June 2005 at the Intercontinental Sandton Sun agreed the following in respect of the franchise system in South Africa for the Super 14 Competition.
1. That a formal legal agreement shall be drafted immediately confirming what was agreed regarding the Super 14 franchise system in South Africa.
2. The South Eastern (SE) Cape Franchise shall be financially supported by SA RUGBY / SARU in respect of their development during 2006. In light thereof SA RUGBY / SARU must procure sponsorships for the SE Cape Franchise for the 2006 season.
3. The SE Cape franchise shall be entrenched in the Super 14 Competition for the 2007 & 2008
rugby seasons.
4. The South African team finishing at the bottom of the log in 2006, will automatically be replaced by the SE Cape for the 2007 season.
5. At the end of the 2007 Super 14 season, the South African franchise team, which is last on the Super 14 log, excluding the SE Cape, shall play in a promotion relegation match against the franchise team who did not play in the 2007 Super 14 competition.
6. That the decision which was taken at the meeting on 15 April 2005 in respect of the South African franchise system, are hereby amended in order to reflect the above agreement.
7. That the Falcons Rugby Union will form part of the Blue Bulls franchise.
8. SA RUGBY shall within 21 days as from 8 June 2005, compile a “White Paper” in respect of the total SA RUGBY’S competition structure.
now tell Stelbooi, which of these resolutions was SUCCESSFULLY executed and is STILL in effect today?
people like you like to shift the goal posts and make this whole thing about politics and black players and cheeky watson and gravy trains, scarecrows that you know you can KNOCK down with ease!
SARU led by Oregan Hoskins reneged on ratified resolutions, cut up the Spears and handed the franchise to the Cheetahs/Lions (i can’t recall who finished last in ’06)
that is the issue, at that point neither of these franchises were well established (look how the lions have faired 6 years later).
17 Feb 2012, 16:30 pm
@David(David)-327: don’t worry when it suits some people here the race card trumps everything
hehehe
the lions and cheetahs have had 6 years since the spears were dissolved, how many black players have they developed, but the Kings must run out with a predominantly black team in their first match!
the stupidity is as astounding as the prejudice
17 Feb 2012, 16:31 pm
@ allblacksaregods
I absolutely agree with you. We need a franchise in the E Cape. Nobody is disputing that, even the existing franchises agreed to it in principle. The reality is that one of the existing teams would have to fall out. The Cheetahs produce the most Springboks (since readmission) and the Lions a full of future Springboks and in the centre of the biggest financial hub in Africa. Cutting one of them will harm the Springboks – all this because of a decision not based on rugby merit but on philosophical ideals – reality bites and it will harm the Boks.
Maybe you will enjoy that being a bok supporter, but the rest of us want to whitewash the Allblacks 4 years in a row and we need to ruthlessly cling to excellence to manage it.
17 Feb 2012, 16:32 pm
@RL(RL)-326: um, what are the Lions in it for? they haven’t won S(HIT since they split from the Cats, what is your escuse for a 21% win-ratio since 2006?
tl tl tl
17 Feb 2012, 16:35 pm
@steblooi(steblooi)-325:
you’re making an assumption about how i see the world…
i don’t see people by their colours… one thing i do hate is grouping people… whether by colour, religion, class, finances, whatever… when the group is the be-all-and-end-all the individual is too easily sacrificed for the ‘good’ of the group… i believe that if every individual is respected the respect for ‘rights’ of the group is a natural consequence…
the sooner we can respect each individual a) as a fellow human being and b) for the his or her character instead of his or her colour, the better we’ll be… but i’m not holding my breath…
you say you’re frustrated that they include white players… so you obviously do see this in terms of race…
but i notice you sidestepped the crux of my post….
what did the force do to deserve a free ride into super rugby…?
what did perth do to deserve a rugby union franchise…?
what merit was there in using super rugby to give perth a new franchise…?
how many perthians (?) played for the force in those first few years…?
what did melbourne do…? what did the rebels do..? what merit was there in these franchises being created and aussie rugby using super rugby to develop rugby union in their own country…?
and why did you not come on keo and complain about the unfairness of those developments and the lack of merit in them…?
what is the difference between their new franchises and the kings…?
17 Feb 2012, 16:35 pm
@steblooi(steblooi)-331: bullshit, how come players developed at the lions have been leaving in DROVES when the team is in the FINANCIAL HUB of SA?
please tells.
17 Feb 2012, 16:38 pm
@ transformation
All you include above points to SARU’s ineptitude, which has continued with their premature acknowledgement of including the Kings – which was only done to give them enough room to move on the appointment of Meyer, a white afrikaans male.
The goalposts never move Transformation, the reality is you always have to win. The sad fact is the Kings lost to Boland in their promotion/relegation game, thus they are not winners and not deserving. Every union in SA should have one goal and one goal only, contributing to perpetual success of the Springboks. And if that happens to result in 22 black players in every game I would honestly be the happiest man in the world!
17 Feb 2012, 16:40 pm
@David(David)-327:
exactly…
17 Feb 2012, 16:41 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-334:
Tranquilo son!! Its only friday and you are about to have a heart attack.
Your largest form of choronary anxiety awaits you on Sunday…
17 Feb 2012, 16:43 pm
@steblooi(steblooi)-331:
The Boks wouldn’t be affected at all, as the top players would be snapped up by the other franchises. What would happen though, is that relegated side would find themselves in exactly the same position that the Kings are in.
SARU screwed up royally when they allowed the provinces to choose who they wanted to partner with when the 5th franchise came available and put the 5th one up for auction.
17 Feb 2012, 16:43 pm
how about epru pay back the money to the sharks (with interest) and become part of the franchise again. then there can be an agreed number of games in pe to stimulate interest and saru can see if it is worthwhile creating a new franchise in the region?
or will that be discriminating against ep?
17 Feb 2012, 16:43 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-332: no excuse for those amateur pricks running Lions rugby – they need the right “qualified” people doing the right thing to get a winning team. What do you want, a development team or do you want a winning team from the get go?
Now don’t bullshit, you already said the latter
17 Feb 2012, 16:48 pm
@ UFO
You are trying to create a comparison between Aus and SA. When the Force was created nobody stood to lose. There was no franchise going down the drain, ditto for the Rebels. In the end Aus rugby only gained – James OConnor, David Pocock greater exposure, higher TV audience numbers etc.
In our situation a super franchise will be history this time next year.
Apart from the court cases from the union, the major sponsors and the players on contract, the repercussions will include losing players overseas, even possibly a Brussouw or a Goosen. The reality is that some players are irreplaceble. The two mentioned above a only a few, never mind those coming through the ranks. Can you imagine the Kiwi’s having lost a Carter because of that kind of **** 10 years ago? NZ would have been a laughing stock, which is what we are going to be. I want SA rugby to be the best, in at least 80% of games and preferably in every game against NZ. For that we need the best, colour spectrum regardless.
Relegation will destroy whichever union suffers it, plain and simple.
17 Feb 2012, 16:51 pm
@ufo(ufo)-333: booooya!
17 Feb 2012, 16:54 pm
@ transformation
The Lions players left the union because the union was inept and unqualified to run a professional rugby union. They certainly did not deserve their spot.
However, given what John Mitchell has done, what is going to happen if the Lions come third in the SA conference, or finish second, or worse, win it?
How do you relegate them then? You simply cannot. The Cheetahs, as mentioned above, produce the most Springboks, so you can’t relegate them. Will Saru relegate the Bulls, Sharks or Stormers? No they won’t, because financial clout will do the talking.
17 Feb 2012, 16:55 pm
@charo(charo)-339: NO NO NO !!!!!! Sharks are doing just fine by themselves we dont need any interference….koeksisters and tomato sauce
17 Feb 2012, 16:56 pm
@ufo(ufo)-333: Eish … are you really comparing the Aussie setup to the one here? I don’t believe it. Rather compare SA unions with SA unions, it makes more sense.
p.s. remember in SA there are no such thing as franchises, the guppies destroyed that experiment long ago.
17 Feb 2012, 16:57 pm
@steblooi(steblooi)-341: um, really? “Relegation will destroy whichever union suffers it, plain and simple.”
being on the outside is CURRENTLY killing our region and its potential to develop! why should the south eastern cape suffer being on the outside for longer?
i keep telling you, Free State & Griquas bid for their franchise, they didn’t PLAY for it in some field. same as the Force, same as the Rebels….
the myth perpetuated by the likes of Katman that “international competition is not for development” falls flat when one looks at what the Aussies and even the kiwis are doing to an extent!
17 Feb 2012, 17:00 pm
The last week of the Off Season is going to be unbearable long one
So it seemed at this point
17 Feb 2012, 17:00 pm
Considering that any franchise would be South African and based in SA, I wonder how the Lions or Cheetahs players would react if asked, “Would you prefer to play for a franchise and province where you can live in Plett, Knysna, Cape St Francis or at Fancourt, or would you prefer Jhb, Boksburg, Witbank and Vereeniging or Bloem, Welkom, Potch and Kimberly”. I wonder what the choices would be?
17 Feb 2012, 17:01 pm
@Treehugger(Treehugger)-344:
just trying to help our struggling brothers down the coast 8)
17 Feb 2012, 17:02 pm
@steblooi(steblooi)-343:
The Chhetahs (Grey College) might produce the most Boks, but how many of them actually stay there? Why not just allow them to remain a feeder team for the Sharks?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.