All Blacks to Boycott RWC 2015?

First topic message reminder :

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Sports/Story/A1Story20110928-301894.html

As he says, it would be the action of last resort - but if commercial arrangements stay the same as the current WC then it is exceedingly unlikely that New Zealand would participate.

While I have sympathies with countries losing money each of his potential solutions effectively means a loss to someone else:

1) Move the WC so a full Tri Nations can be played - note NH countries lose all their AIs all ready. This must mean moving it later, thus heavily impacting even further on the European season. They do not want to affect the Super XV by playing Tri-nations earlier, but do want to ride roughshod over the HC timetable.

2) Pay more to Tier 1 countries. This thus reduces the cash available for improving world wide rugby and is a narrow minded and short term view. The better the level of world wide rugby and it's exposure, the higher the TV and Commercial revenues and thus the money coming back to the Unions.

3) Relax the restrictions placed on the individual sponsors of countries (ie allow shirt sponsorship and other commercial activities for team sponsors rather than official IRB sponsors). This will obviousley reduce the value of the sponsoship package. It is however the best of the 3 solutions.


Any way, what do you think? Is mentioning this during a WC the right time? Should they have raised it earlier - seeing as they knew the arrangements in place for this WC?

As a side note - if the RFU had mentioned this and were mooting the possibility of boycotting a WC in NZ they would have been pilloried from every corner of the rugby globe. Will double standards be applied?

And the weather in London is turning it on. just in time for me to leave. conspiracy?

If "large number of Sky subscribers" equates to pedigree, then it's already over for western civilization.

so we can afford premium telly- that doesnt tell me that the western world(which you are very much a part off matey) is over

TycroesOsprey wrote:Hang on people keep sayin that all the other tier one nations are faceing bankruptcy or insolvency? Thats just not true England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France are all operating at a profit. I dont know about the boks but Argentina and Italy also have money in their coffers.

Euro nations do not have more power in the IRB everyone has a single vote, and traditionally Wales has sided with SANZAR on countless issues having a world cup in the first place for instance as have Ireland on a number of occasions. The RFU refused to join the IRB at first which is why its based in Dublin. so saying its a NH club is not correct.

this is like the many of the ELV, Aus wanted them cos it would suit their game and they would be more successful. the NH did not because they were totally incompatible with the 15 man code.

Its about the greater good of teh game

No one is saying that the other Tier 1 nations are facing financial ruin, rather that the other Tier 1 countries are also losing revenue in a RWC year.

Also, as mentioned so many times my head is starting to hurt, the reason that the NH teams have money in the coffers is because of the higher revenue they generate from TV rights and sponsorship, a large amount of which is off the back of the SH teams touring in the Autumn.

As regards Argentina, they have managed to avoid a number of their costs by not having a professional league and allowing player's salaries to be paid by others (i.e. UK/French clubs).

TheGreyGhost wrote:Big difference between the legacy of the All Blacks, unsallied by overt advertising, and the change-a-day white, red, stripy, purple or tequilla sunrise sponsorladen advertising space born by the England players.

Just sayin'...

Yes GG, and every new kit is a new source of revenue, that brings in more money - therefore the RFU make more money QED.

On the other hand one kit in one colour, well you buy one and can wear it forever and with no sponsors changing on the front people can't even tell if it's out of date - great integrity but rotten business sense.

i used the word pedigree as a joke- i was dishing it about the other day

"Also, as mentioned so many times my head is starting to hurt, the reason that the NH teams have money in the coffers is because of the higher revenue they generate from TV rights and sponsorship, a large amount of which is off the back of the SH teams touring in the Autumn.

As regards Argentina, they have managed to avoid a number of their costs by not having a professional league and allowing player's salaries to be paid by others (i.e. UK/French clubs)."

you miss the important point there- uk and french leagues make money on there own right, argentina havent got one , because they cannot sustain it

TheGreyGhost wrote:Big difference between the legacy of the All Blacks, unsallied by overt advertising, and the change-a-day white, red, stripy, purple or tequilla sunrise sponsorladen advertising space born by the England players.

Just sayin'...

hmm Adidas, Air NZ, Coke, Ford, Mastercard, Investec, IVECO, SKYSPORTS, itm, Steinlager and others~? Englands sponsers http://www.rfu.com/AboutTheRFU/Sponsors
Heres the Welsh http://www.wru.co.uk/eng/thewru/partners/title_sponsors.php

I think your just as sullied as the rest of us.

My god man, you have forced a Welshman to agree with Brian Moore and defend the RFU can you not see why the rest of the rugby world is unhappy about this?

Oakey I at least enjoyed the pedigree quip

nice.

Regardng the point about revenue from the AIs, if all the SANZAR teams chose to stay away it would undoubtedly have an impact on sponsorship and TV money for the NH teams (in particular Scotland and Italy), but since there presumably is money in this for the SANZAR sides it would hurt them even more to lose their share of the revenue if they are as poverty stricken as claimed by Mr Tew - they don't come all this way for free I think...

Also with the right ticketing policy a SANZAR free AI period would be a good time for developement games with our European neighbours, which would still get reasonable crowds and open up a new TV market - alternatively and/or combined with a revived Barbarians made up of 6N and SANZAR expats tour.

Wouldn't be as good but it (sensibly priced or linked to 6n tickets) would certainly keep the finances ticking over.....

emack2 wrote:GELEDGE,the All Blacks have WON more games than any other in a RWC fact.NOT stats based on win /loss of finals/wins %.
SA were`nt in 1987 or 1991 so it is physical impossibility they won more games.For what the trivial point is worth.

Which is different from what you said in your first two posts, "THE most successful overall RWC side" and "THE most successful team in or out of RWC on games won/lost", directly suggesting a ratio.

Irish Londoner,

You are right that the SANZAR countries make money from the NH tours - they get a cut of the gate and sponsors shell out a bit more knowing they will get NH exposure, however this is all a drop in the ocean compared to the revenue the NH teams get from their TV rights.

At the end of the day TV rights are the key to any professional sports, and although I accept that their are greater viewing numbers in the NH, I do not accept that the teams that are helping to generate that revenue get nothing from it.

As a compromise how about we give you a proportionate cut of our June tour TV rights and we'll take a proportionate cut of yours - I know who will stand to gain and who stands to lose and that sums the issue up in a nutshell.

I need some Freedom, I want some Freedom, Freedom, Freedom, Freedom for my people

lifes not fair.

you have to woik to get what you want

promote the all blacks- by winning a world cup- you will see a rise in your sponsership!

promote the all blacks in other countries- gain fans

sort out your pro league- get some business men involved

bread like rabbits - get your population up.

have a joint nz-aus pro league

have a joint nz-aus-somoan-figian league

you have so many options to turn your rugby game into a money spinner- but you want the easy option because you have made bad mistakes.

gelodge wrote:

emack2 wrote:GELEDGE,the All Blacks have WON more games than any other in a RWC fact.NOT stats based on win /loss of finals/wins %.
SA were`nt in 1987 or 1991 so it is physical impossibility they won more games.For what the trivial point is worth.

Which is different from what you said in your first two posts, "THE most successful overall RWC side" and "THE most successful team in or out of RWC on games won/lost", directly suggesting a ratio.

Jesus wept emack you are the ultimate ABs ...In fact i would say you are the BEST!!

Right, so the argument is that because the NH teams get more money from TV rights they should give a larger proportion of it as an act of benevolence to the visiting teams so that the SANZAR sides can spend more money on their domestic leagues and players ? And why exactly would they want to do that - to keep Dan Carter on however many thousand a year in NZ ?

I have no doubt that behind the scenes at Twickenham and other home union HQs there's much gleeful chuckling and rubbing of hands by the 57 old fart brigade that having pushed the game into professionialism the SANZAR national sides are now supposedly going to the wall because of it.

Don't worry though, the usual IRB fudge will keep Mr Tew and his cohorts in the manner to which we'd all like to be accustomed and "THE BRAND" will step off the ANZ plane at Heathrow in four years. Who knows some of the money might even go to the players....

If the AB 'brand' is so big (in rugby i can think of no other) then someone is the NZRFU is not doing their job properly

Faoo19 a small point,has nothing to do with Steve Tew`s statement The Boks lost 5 out of 6 at the end of the 2009?
During the Lions tour of 2009,NO Boks were involved before the Tests they
lost one test.During the 6Ns they lost a further one,then two on the AI`s Tour.
Presumably the rest of the squad play Provincial sides thats what squad management is about.
The 3Ns was devalued by the Boks in 2007,by Jake White this year nobody except Australia were interested.HAD the All Blacks wanted it the A team would have settled it at Port Elizabeth.
It is true when the 3Ns was six matches it became boring to a degree more so.When they then had an extra Bledisloe tacked on as well.
BUT don`t forget the All Blacks won 3 of the 4 ,one against the draw.
The 3Ns is played between [till now] THE IRB top 3 sides since it`s inception.[most of the time]
Is no less boring than the 6Ns for REAL Rugby followers,the skills levels are as good or better.
Agreed in RWC years they may as well be dispensed with IF you are prioritising them.
Steve Tew`s comments would have more weight if they WITHDREW from this one.
But that would just start the chickening out Jibes,IF they win this year[unlikelyI Know].
Just go up onto the podium and say NO THANKS WE DON`T WANT IT.
THAT would be a statement THE side that has won MORE matches both inside and outside a RWC than any other team.[THAT is matches WON not %]if anyone is unable to understand me.
BUT believe me it ain`t going to happen.

It's amazing how this debate slides into kiwi bashing. Steve Tew isn't always popular in NZ, and his comments are considered ill timed in many places. However I think several things are worth remembering:
1. This is not just a kiwi issue, but also an issue for South Africa and Australia, both have made noises this year (ONiel has come out in support of Tew.
2. It's also an issue for the smaller nations, I am aware of several nations who are struggling financially at the cup.
3. It's an issue for the players. The player union has come out in support of Tew. This includes players from countries like England, Ireland and Wales. They have taised issues with the IRB as well.
4. It's not a question of straight professionalism. Many of the solutions are taken from other professional sports (e.g. sponsorship at the games using the FIFA model).

In short don't shoot the messanger because he happens to be a kiwi. Look at the message. Is it really case of all the above being greedy? Are The NZRFU, ARU, Dan Carter, Pocock, Smit, Merdard, Brian ODriscoll, Paul OConnel, Johnny Wilkenson, Manu Tuilagi, Shane Williams et al., being greedy? Or are there, two sides to the story? Maybe the IRB isn't completely blameless here?

emack2 wrote:Faoo19 a small point,has nothing to do with Steve Tew`s statement The Boks lost 5 out of 6 at the end of the 2009?
During the Lions tour of 2009,NO Boks were involved before the Tests they
lost one test.During the 6Ns they lost a further one,then two on the AI`s Tour.
Presumably the rest of the squad play Provincial sides thats what squad management is about.
The 3Ns was devalued by the Boks in 2007,by Jake White this year nobody except Australia were interested.HAD the All Blacks wanted it the A team would have settled it at Port Elizabeth.
It is true when the 3Ns was six matches it became boring to a degree more so.When they then had an extra Bledisloe tacked on as well.
BUT don`t forget the All Blacks won 3 of the 4 ,one against the draw.
The 3Ns is played between [till now] THE IRB top 3 sides since it`s inception.[most of the time]
Is no less boring than the 6Ns for REAL Rugby followers,the skills levels are as good or better.
Agreed in RWC years they may as well be dispensed with IF you are prioritising them.
Steve Tew`s comments would have more weight if they WITHDREW from this one.
But that would just start the chickening out Jibes,IF they win this year[unlikelyI Know].
Just go up onto the podium and say NO THANKS WE DON`T WANT IT.
THAT would be a statement THE side that has won MORE matches both inside and outside a RWC than any other team.[THAT is matches WON not %]if anyone is unable to understand me.
BUT believe me it ain`t going to happen.

You have won a load of battles no doubt, just can't win the war so now you are pulling out?

I am not sure what a REAL follower of rugby is but I am sure I am one and i love RWC and want it to include NZ , the simple fact is rugby has to make money. Really bored of your devaluing everything.

Gatts,we agree to disagree,earlier a poster stated "WE don`t need the Sanzar countries"
Now that statement,NOT MINE would indicate that THE person concerned
does`nt care aboutSA,Aus ,and NZ.OR the RWC just the 6Ns.
The statement frankly I find embarassing,and no doubt will be sorted by 2015.
Hopefully,the snags thrown up this year will be solved by 2015.I don`t know you support[or care for that matter].
BUT wouldn`t you like someone else other than the same Cosy club win the RWC.I WOULD and I mean ANYBODY if they can get around this seedings thing.
Some of the best Rugby so far has been between minnows with no hope in a RWC playing for pride.

"BUT wouldn`t you like someone else other than the same Cosy club win the RWC.I WOULD and I mean ANYBODY if they can get around this seedings thing.



errr i think the only team he wants to win is his own!!

just like every other fan- bar the kiwis offcourse- its classic inferiority from them. Lets get the excuses in first shall we - lol

I think it was Merthens that said it last night
The problem is we have the talent but they (NH) have the money.
Money talks the loudest now as its a professional game.
Everyone knows that there is almost no chance NZ won't go to 2015. Tew said that also. He also said he doesn't want it to happen.
He says essentially that if we are too poor and can't afford to go then we won't go.

It is time for New Zealand to get creative for the sustainability of their sport.

If there are 4 million people in NZ and let's say 2 million are earning a salary, then New Zealand needs to use the influence and cult status Richie McCaw has in the country to call on the public to help.

If 2 miilion people in whatver manner they can think of, be it a club card, a public share or whatever each put in 20 dollars per year NZRU will have an additional 40 million dollars at their disposal.

The nzru business model has always been flawed because they want to control the players without having the means to do so. The RFU makes money partly because it doesn't wholly own or fund its own teams. The NH clubs ie. French & English get a lot of stick but these privately owned businesses are the only future for the professional tier of the game. Centrally controlled, top down structures simply do not last as long as bottom up diverse economic structures.
Oz rugby tried to follow the same model as their cricket and it hasn't worked.

biltongbek wrote:It is time for New Zealand to get creative for the sustainability of their sport.

If there are 4 million people in NZ and let's say 2 million are earning a salary, then New Zealand needs to use the influence and cult status Richie McCaw has in the country to call on the public to help.

If 2 miilion people in whatver manner they can think of, be it a club card, a public share or whatever each put in 20 dollars per year NZRU will have an additional 40 million dollars at their disposal.

Have you seen the wages down here ?? Not flash

"As regards Argentina, they have managed to avoid a number of their costs by not having a professional league and allowing player's salaries to be paid by others (i.e. UK/French clubs)."

And therein lies the solution. NZ cannot generate the revenue required to cover its cost base. So what's the solution? Left wing talk of sharing TV revenue's is fanciful, it ain't gonna happen. Instead the NH can help the SH by paying the wages of a number of its players. SANZAR can still support a professional league but it needs to be rightsized, at the moment it is a bloated mess.

Recwatcher wrote:The nzru business model has always been flawed because they want to control the players without having the means to do so. The RFU makes money partly because it doesn't wholly own or fund its own teams. The NH clubs ie. French & English get a lot of stick but these privately owned businesses are the only future for the professional tier of the game. Centrally controlled, top down structures simply do not last as long as bottom up diverse economic structures.
Oz rugby tried to follow the same model as their cricket and it hasn't worked.

And when you get to the stage where you have a club dominated game, bring in the meaningless friendlies and let the All Blacks travel the world as the Harlem Globetrotters of Rugby. Let them play exhibition matches ala the Brazilian football team. Let the soul of rugby wilt away…..

A club dominated game is not where I want Rugby to go. May be good economically, but the clubs have to be controlled. Rugby is based on a pyramid where clubs should feed the International scene. Look at what European clubs are already doing with their power to influence players from smaller nations – “you can play in this world cup, but we won’t renew your contract at the end”. A lot of players are playing in Europe when they should be rightly playing for their country. It’s the players choice ultimately as they need to look after No 1, but clubs should not be able to exert such influence over a player at all.

No one model is perfect, we need to find a working solution. In fact, if they can come up with a solution to the problems facing Rugby over the next 15-20 years quickly, then I’d get them on to the Euro crisis ASAP!

Islingtonv2 wrote:"As regards Argentina, they have managed to avoid a number of their costs by not having a professional league and allowing player's salaries to be paid by others (i.e. UK/French clubs)."

And therein lies the solution. NZ cannot generate the revenue required to cover its cost base. So what's the solution? Left wing talk of sharing TV revenue's is fanciful, it ain't gonna happen. Instead the NH can help the SH by paying the wages of a number of its players. SANZAR can still support a professional league but it needs to be rightsized, at the moment it is a bloated mess.

And then NZ becomes just a feeder nation, again like Brazil in football. Get the gang together once every 4 years for a one off tournament in between play loads of friendlies around the world. Why Friendlies? Because European clubs will ‘claim’ players are injured and can’t play, and we have the same fine mess we see in football. Therefore the NZ 'team' will be a rag tag bunch who show up two days out before the game from all corners of the globe. Not what I want my All Blacks to be I'm afraid

The reason NZ invests in its player base is to keep the talent here. I can imagine hoards of English club scouts coming by the plane load every year to take in the High School comps all over the place, ready to pick off the U18 talent…..they’ll end up playing for England too I would imagine.

If NZ doesn’t have a product to offer (All Blacks, Super XV, ITM Cup) then it gets no money. No money, no players (Top level will go, emerging level will be picked off and we’ll be left with a grassroots level with no funding). No players, no All Blacks.

You’d also be surprised by the threat of Rugby League in NZ, which is deemed as a better product entertainment wise. Certainly a lot of NZ kids are changing over and the Junior Warriors side which will contest this week’s U20 NRL final boast 3 former Auckland Grammar 1XV players (AG being the best school side in the world). In fact, October shapes as a pivotal month in NZ sports. The Warriors are competing in all three finals of the NRL club comp, NZ hold the WC and 4 Nations title and could effectively hold all the meaningful cups in World RL after this weekend. If the AB’s lose the WC, then RL will go up in playing numbers I have no doubt.

I’m not afraid of RL by the way, my roots are in that code and I love the game but NZ is all about RU and we’ve got to have something to offer to keep our players in the game here. Simple.

NZ should look to get the cash rich Japanese clubs integrated heavily into super rugby rather than messing around creating more and more Australian sides. Let the Aussies build their own club competition.

By involving japanese based and funded franchises, we can tap into their massive cash resources. If the NZ players are free to play for Japanese franchises and still be eligible for AB selection due to their involvement in super rugby then it solves many issues.

Firstly, super rugby can collect massive revenue from star sports and other asian based TV networks.

Secondly, the NZRFU is saved from paying large salaries to AB eligible players since the bulk of their wages would be paid out by Toyota, Fuji and so on.

Thirdly, the Japanese clubs would have to pay a franchise fee to Super Rugby Limited who would redistribute profits to the constituent nations SANZARJ

Fourthly, we'd massively grow the game in one of the key target regions, throughout asia. Japanese players would get the opportunity to play head to head on a regular basis with the best players in the world.

Fifth, the player drain from NZ would be reduced, because guys would get their OE playing experience and provide for their retirement without the need to go to France or England.

The potential issue of large travelling miles is already fixed by the conference system introduced this year.

Are you listening Mr Tew? Just PM me, and I'll happily accept the job that you obviously want to create for me.

Ta.

GG.

GG

It could actually work. Only if we cut SA loose – who would probably prefer playing in Europe anyway to be honest. What about PANZJAM Rugby? Pacific, Australia, NZ, Japan, America?

chewed_mintie wrote:GG

It could actually work. Only if we cut SA loose – who would probably prefer playing in Europe anyway to be honest. What about PANZJAM Rugby? Pacific, Australia, NZ, Japan, America?

Why would we prefer to play in europe?

The travel is the same, the conditions are wet, cold and miserable.

If we do get "CUT LOOSE" I would prefer us going back to our original structure of making the currie cup our main domestic competition, play less against other nations' clubs and franchises, familiarity brings contempt anyway, players these days know each other too well.

It will be good to see only tests against other countries, our players will also play less and have longer careers.

South African rugby would atrophy in Europe.

They have a tendency to the 10 man game anyway, and between us and the Aussies we just about keep them honest.

If they were to wander off to Yerp, they'd firstly, clean up everything to the extent that the Europeans got fed up with them, and secondly lose all allusion to a running game. At which point that slowly drift behind the PANZJAMARAMSAPIK nations (pacific, nz, japan, australia, americans, argentina, american samoa, papua new guinnea and kenya)

Biltong – you guys have easier and quicker access to a bigger market. Put it this way, you fly 24 hrs to NZ already why not fly 12 hrs to London/Paris etc. Arduous travel will be reduced by half, ok the standard of play might be a bit lower but you boys would be raising the level so the TV networks would be keen. Same time zone makes sense too

The best bit: would bring back a bit of mysticism to NZ v SA matches

I agree with the last sentence only.

Aukland Grammar are the best school side in the world?

Really its statements like this that make you look insular, blinkerd and delusional.

I wasnt aware that the worlds top school sides had played each other to decide this? How did Llandovery do? or my alma mater christs? or Millfield? Stonyhurst? Sherborne? How did you fare againt Blackrock college they were always the strongest side in Ireland often the uk? coulstons have been winning things for fun in the last few years?

Of course two of the above sides contest the oldest annual rugby match still played. Millifeld has prduced some of the greatest rugby players in the world including the greatest ever rugby player in the world. Rugby of course is where the game started although their 1st XV have never been that great in the last 40 years.

Can you link for me the match reports from the games where Aukland grammar played these sides with a rugby pedigree thath goes back to the very origins of the game? I really want to see how George North fared against Aukland last year, Llandovery were on fire with him in the centre.?

honestly, the NZRFU couldnt win a punch in a fight. Why dont they get ADIDAS to run all their affairs as opposed to solely the actual rugby team? Relocate everything to Frankfurt for a bit of vorsprung durch techik...

On another topic, I was chatting to a Kiwi (in the Emirates lounge at Dubai airport) yesterday morning who was banging on about how nauseating he found the presentation ceremony for Richie's 100th cap. Apparently you could see RM cringing at it as well. Did anyone catch it? Was it that bad?

Grey College in Bloemfontain. If anyone is the best rugby school in the world then this surely it.

Frans Steyn
Bismaarck Du Plessis
Jannie Du Plessis
CJ Van der Linde
Ruan Pienaar
Heinrich Brussow
Adriaan Strauss

These are just current bokke who developed their game at Grey College.

The team often goes unbeaten year on year.

TheGreyGhost wrote:South African rugby would atrophy in Europe.

They have a tendency to the 10 man game anyway, and between us and the Aussies we just about keep them honest.

If they were to wander off to Yerp, they'd firstly, clean up everything to the extent that the Europeans got fed up with them, and secondly lose all allusion to a running game. At which point that slowly drift behind the PANZJAMARAMSAPIK nations (pacific, nz, japan, australia, americans, argentina, american samoa, papua new guinnea and kenya)

Ghost, our natural tnedency is not to play only 10 man rugby, that is a fallicy. Look at our curry cup and yu will see more running rugby than ten man rugby.

Here are some stats from last years Currie Cup.

Offloads
Sharks 14 per match
Cheetahs 13 per match
Lions 13 per match
Griquas 12 per match

Linebreaks
Sharks 12 per match
Cheetahs 12 per match
WP 11 per match
Lions 12 per match

Passes
Sharks 169 per match
WP 166 per match
Cheetahs 174 per match
Lions 175 per match

Kicks
Lions 13 per match
Sharks 13 per match
Pumas 17 per match
Leopards 19 per match.

You see not all about 10 man rugby.

Fa,

OOps sorry for got about Grey College and Im trying to desperatly remember Jake Whites old school which are also a great school side.

Aukland have a good chess side apparently.

chewed_mintie wrote:In fact, October shapes as a pivotal month in NZ sports. The Warriors are competing in all three finals of the NRL club comp

TheGreyGhost wrote:Let the Aussies build their own club competition.

Grey college is the most succesful producer of springboks, it has produced 38 springboks in total

1. Herman van Broekhuizen
1896

2. Boetie McHardy
1912

3. Sarel Strauss
1921

4. Louis Babrow
1937

5. Harry Martin
1937

6. Piet de Wet
1938

7. Popeye Strydom
1955

8. John Wessels
1965

9. Johan Spies
1970

10. Dawie Snyman
1971

11. Morne du Plessis
1971

12. Jackie Snyman
1974

13. Theuns Stofberg
1976

14. Robbie Blair
1977

15. Jaco Reinach
1986

16. Helgard Muller
1986

17. Andries Truscott
1992

18. Johan Styger
1992

19. Pieter Muller
1992

20. Heinrich Fuls
1992

21. Ruben Kruger
1993

22. Naka Drotske
1993

23. Ollie le Roux
1994

24. Werner Swanepoel
1997

25. Charl Marais
1999

26. CJ van der Linde
2002

27. Gerrie Britz
2004

28. Ruan Pienaar
2006

29. Frans Steyn
2006

30. Bismarck du Plessis
2007

31. Jannie du Plessis
2007

32. Wian du Preez
2007

33. Tiaan Liebenberg
2007

34. Adriaan Strauss
2008

35. Heinrich Brussow
2008

36. Flip van der Merwe
2010

37. Coenie Oosthuizen
2010

38. Deon Stegmann
2010

sorry to bore you.

Jeppe High School in SA very good side as well, damn my memory is failing I had to look it up

boomeranga wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:In fact, October shapes as a pivotal month in NZ sports. The Warriors are competing in all three finals of the NRL club comp

TheGreyGhost wrote:Let the Aussies build their own club competition.

Who cares about League?

Look at my argument in context, I'm not saying throw Australia out of super-rugby. I'm saying it's not SANZARs responsibility to provide a club competition to Australia. SA have the Currie Cup, NZ have the ITM/Air NZ, whatever it's called now and the venerable Ranfurly Shield.

Frankly adding new Australian franchises like ACT, Perth, Melbourne and then rotating the core of the Wallaby side from franchise to franchise to bolster them in the opening year is just preposterous. Then we have the foolish notion of starting yet another poor Australian franchise and starting to import second hand rejects from Britain like the idiot Cipriani. There's enough talent in the Pacific region thanks very much, if Australia doesn't have it then why on Earth are they getting new franchises? It's just stupid, and wrong.

no match reports mintie?

Why do you get to determine the context that suits you though Ghost? The fact you play in a few of competitions while squealing about helping our rugby makes you look like hypocrites to us. I can completely understand SA complaining, but sports wise you guys offer us little but rugby while otherwise standing with your hand out.

I think the point is that a top down structure to a union is unsustainable, without a domestic competition underpinned by acadamies and schools competitions

Super rugby is the pinnacle of teh SH game but both SA and the Blacks have strong domestic competitions, They both have schools that feed into those clubs that in turn feed into the S15 franchises.

The context is: This is a rugby forum Boomerang, I'm talking about rugby.

SANZAR can't become a charity organisation for Australian rugby. Australia has too many weak super rugby franchises already.

ACT was an experiment to relocate Australian rugby talent to try to expand the game internally by artificially effectively making them the Wallabies squad. This was successful in terms of rugby results, I understand not so successful in creating interest in the region.

But it spectacularly fell apart when the whole operation was moved to Perth. Australian stocks were so thin that foreign coaches had to be drafted in. No-one but the large SA immigrant population in Perth remotely cares about rugby and the Force are a joke.

Then we have the farce of Melbourne being introduced. This time foreign players are required because Australia is all out of rugby players. Again top players are relocated further weakening the other franchises.

Unsurprisingly, Queensland were catapulted to the top of the super table essentially through lack of competition in their conference.

Australia need to go away, build their own second tier club competition and then enter a limited number of strong sides into super rugby. This is for the good of both entities.

This will free up space in the super conference system for the further franchises comprising the SA and NZ talent that is currently wandering off to Europe. Funded by the Japanese clubs, as I suggested.

A club dominated game is not where I want Rugby to go. May be good economically, but the clubs have to be controlled. Rugby is based on a pyramid where clubs should feed the International scene.

I agree on the pyramidal structure. But what you are saying (or at least what I think you are saying) is that Rugby should be run by the controlling Union. Well I'm glad you trust the NZRU, but for my part I'm really glad the the RFU has other organisations to keep them honest. I don't trust the RFU management board (if they have one at the minute) to run o booze up iN A BREWERY.

Look at what European clubs are already doing with their power to influence players from smaller nations – “you can play in this world cup, but we won’t renew your contract at the end”. A lot of players are playing in Europe when they should be rightly playing for their country. It’s the players choice ultimately as they need to look after No 1, but clubs should not be able to exert such influence over a player at all

If the contract they signed is illegal, being part of Europe - we have some pretty stringent employment legislation that ensures workers are not screwed by the gaffers, they can dispute it.

However, given that the English and French clubs face relegation and the subsequent loss of a hell of a lot of money, some of these players are signed up to cover for internationals who are away. Now if the individual who is signed up gives his word that he is not interested in playing for the national side - and gets the job on this basis - then surely he has no comeback.

It's just like me getting a job on the basis I can work in London then once I've got the job, then refusing to go there.

The English and French clubs get slagged for employing 'mercenaries - but if it wasn't for Club rugby in England and France, a lot of decent players would never get a chance at a reasonably high level.

How many 'foriegners' does the Super15 allow?

If we all locked up the store and only allowed people who had committed to the national side play in our competitions, the Global game would be dead.