Argument over. No more Kings.

hehehe…

well we ALL know the nature of your obsession with south african rugby players, pigeons holes and little yapping dogs…

you have all the intelligence and originality of a noddy-dog on the back windowsill of 1960s volvo car…

made this comment at #29 already…

no wonder you spend all day yap-yapping… like a bored dog at the garden gate watching the world go by, you yap to fill the vacuous silence in your head… you don’t even know why… much like the noddy-dog has no control of its movements… that’s what its role is and it just does it…

no thought required…

> ‘Does SuperRugby deserve the Kings ?’and we ALL know the answer to that.

Even a broken watch is right twice a day

For once I agree with you, if you take the reserves of the bottom dwellers of each of the conferences last year and cobble together a team, they would most likely beat the Kings

‘Does SuperRugby deserve the Kings ?’

and we ALL know the answer to that.

> man grow up.

Rather rich from someone thinking a team should be entitled to play in a premier competition just because they claim there’s lots of players around or because the ruling party wants it

> the idea of a franchise in this region is not cheekys idea how long must i say this?

Fact is how many Currie Cups or any other trophies has EP ever won?

Compare that against Transvaal/Lions and Free State/Cheetahs?

> the CEO of the Kings is Stefan Pretorius not Cheeky Watson.

Like Putin he’s the power (and the face) behind the throne, although not “officialy” in charge

> are the likes of kevin de klerk, tobie titus or graham mackenzie also “cashing in”?

Maybe, maybe not but in the end it depends how succesful your team is on the pitch, the Stormers have been in a semi and a final the last two years and the Lions albeit bankrupt, have won the CC due to Kevin getting the right coach etc

What real PROGRESS have the Kings made on the pitch?

They couldn’t even win the CC B division, do you really think they’ll have the players to beat the Super 15 teams or to even just to last the whole tournament?

You should see how sports work in NA, if your city doesn’t have the facilities or the money and will to improve it you lose your team.

No Cheeky, comrade or any amount of race card playing would help if it’s not economically feasible

Seattle lost their hockey team and the SuperSonics and they’re trying hard to get two teams back by building a $500 mil stadium

Winnipeg lost their NHL team because their ring was to small. They built a new one and got a team back on the premise that they have to play in front of a packed house. They sold all their season tickets in 17 minutes. Google the “Winnipeg Jets”

> this whole they must prove themselves nonsense is convivient obfuscation.

No it’s not, when it was the Super 10 the teams that finished 1-2-3 in the Currie Cup the previous year played the Super 10 the next.

When it became the Super 12 they added a fourth and when the SA teams formed conferences it stayed that way

> in 2005 when the 5th franchise was made available the lions & cheetahs split and they were HANDED franchises and it was agreed that whoever finishes last in 2006 will be relegated like the Stormers were previously all those years back, in 2006 the lions finished last now tell me WHY they were not relegated?
> just tell me why?

I can’t tell you why but I have a good idea, who else would have had the money and players to compete?

EP?

The crooks running it at that time was too busy carrying off all its money and assets

> the currie cup is no yardstick of how a franchise will do in super rugby

I know, look how the Bulls won the Currie Cup from 2002-2004 and shared it 2006 yet could only win it in 2007, although they did play two away Super semi finals as well

However, if your team is good enough to perform at Currie Cup level you will have some players good enough to make the step up to Super Rugby, you’ll probably have some Boks in your squad as well

You’ll have the player depth in most positions too

> in the same way the ITM Cup is not used to determine who is part of what franchise and who is not!

If you’re honest most of the SA franchises use 99% of the parent union’s own contracted players and only the Cheetahs use a lot of Griqua’s players.

And if they do “borrow” a good player, he’ll be one of their contracted players come the next season

You must also tell us what do you think the Kings are planning to achieve in the Super tournament?

Are they there just to be there, or do they really think they will manage to get to a semi in the next ten years?

the CEO of the Kings is Stefan Pretorius not Cheeky Watson.

are the likes of kevin de klerk, tobie titus or graham mackenzie also “cashing in”?

this whole they must prove themselves nonsense is convivient obfuscation. in 2005 when the 5th franchise was made available the lions & cheetahs split and they were HANDED franchises and it was agreed that whoever finishes last in 2006 will be relegated like the Stormers were previously all those years back, in 2006 the lions finished last now tell me WHY they were not relegated?

just tell me why?

Nope it’s not about Luke

@PissAnt(PissAnt)-204:

> If this means that all current Super Franchises commits to giving the Kings franchise X% of their SupeRugby Murdoch pie in addition to Currie Cup proper entrenchment to get sponsors on-board, then so be it.

> Because money is obviously the big issue here.

It’s more about the Loot than the Luke

Like all his struggle buddies Cheeky wants to cash in big time

Wonder how big Keo’s cut’s going to be?

Maybe he can buy himself another pink tie and hang himself for all his disservice to SA rugby?

I’ve read it on Keo, I think PA mentioned it

If you claim it’s wrong please do tell what he really earns?

Exactly, they should have played their way into the Currie Cup, they couldn’t even win their relegation matches

Natal did even better, they proved it by beating the no 2 in the Currie Cup, not losing against the last team in the CC

Although they were a weak side at the time, the Blue Bulls still won their relegation matches to stay in the CC

@Atreides(Atreides)-197: I don’t mind the banter.. but the fk is stalking my daughter and that makes it dangerous… I hire people to sort out that kind of problem.. we are close to finding him

so where did you VB get that luke is paid such an amount?

Firstly Natal played in the 1985 Currie Cup final agains a very strong WP side, they got there by beating Free State in a one off game between the no 2 Currie Cup A vs no 1 in the B division,

I think Craig Jamieson was their captain at that time

They proved that they belonged in the Currie Cup A division

Northern Transvaal had a hard time adapting to professional rugby, they had no money as they’ve funded their new Northern(?) stand by selling suites (losies) and season tickets ahead for a couple of years so they didn’t have the cash flow to pay salaries to players when the game turned pro

They and the Blue Bulls were bottom dwellers for a few years although they did win the 1998 CC, I think they even had to play relegation matches against the top Currie Cup second division teams

When Heyneke became the coach in 2000 he, Schwartz and the MD at the time (I can’t remember his name) started contracting U20 players as it was all they could afford

Yet, they won the 2001 Vodacom Cup and the 2002 Currie Cup and a lot more after that

If the Kings were so deserving they would have won something by now

If they have some many players at there disposal (200 000 is the number always bandied about on Keo) why did Daddy contract Luke at 3 million a year?

Surely he could buit a good team with all that depth?

The rugby public would be a lot more sympathetic to their Super Rugby inclusion as well if they’re giving the opportunity to players who wouldn’t get it otherwise, istead of stuffing Luke’s pockets

If the Bulls could win the Currie Cup in 2001 with unknown youngsters surely the deserving Kings should be able to win the Currie Cup B division at least?