• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Cats in 2013?

Sker said:
I heard there were really bad logistics issues with the Cats franchise, and neither unions like the idea at all.
Click to expand...
You see the problem is Supersport got shares in the Cheetahs and Sharks. What ever the Cheetahs make with markerting and such a piece of the profit goes to Supersport. Same with the Sharks. Now here is the problem when you add the Lions. That share of Supersport will get smaller as it will be shared with the Lions and SARU is the one looking after it. So now they have to share money with SARU but they already paid them in the TV deal that was made. Plus the payment of the players.
 
Do you walk around wearing a tinfoil hat too?

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk
 
Dunno if I should reply to you because I have been told I am picking on you others might see it as aggressive posting. So I will post this again.

rugby4.jpg

rugby2.jpg

rugby3.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's nice, but your beautiful pictures show Super12 and the Mighty Elephants.

Do you have anything more recent than 2005?
 
TRF_Ezequiel said:
It's nice, but your beautiful pictures show Super12 and the Mighty Elephants.

Do you have anything more recent than 2005?
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Are you implying Supersport sold those shares and let someone else into their cash cow? The names might be different but the stakes never changed only increased. They own a near monopoly on broadcasting rights in SA why would they sell their stakes to someone else where they can advertise it to millions of viewers around the world? Between them and SAIL they own a stake in every union except the Boland, Lions and Pumas I think is the third one. The SA Rugby industry Merchandising is valued over 400Mil a year. That is just below the amount Netcorp paid SARFU for the 10 year contract. SAIL's revenue went up by 36 percent when it bought shares in all those unions and 16 percent of that came just from Gate Receipts.

Because Supersport have a monopoly on broadcasting rights in SA they have influence in the draw of major tournaments, kick off times and have say in which brands it wants to expose to the world. If you do not believe me go look up SAIL LIMITED
 
I'm implying you use outdated graphs to make your point. If you are accusing someone of favouritism, you have to supply the evidence to support your claims. With that I mean since 2011. In that year they played 6 of their 12 matches in SA at 7. In 2010 they played 6 of 11 matches in SA at 7, a higher percentage so you could state it has been getting better according to your implications based on facts. Nobody complained though in 2010!

This year it will be 8 out of 12 SA based matches at 7 but still in the 7 years since your graphs have been around, it's only this year the Stormers have more than 2/3 of the matches played at 7... Man, that's some longterm evil plan by SuperSport......

Oh, forgot to mention the fact that they forgot to use this evil plan last season when the Bulls (5) were the team with the most 7 pm matches while the other 4 teams each had 4 matches at 7 pm.......

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk
 
TRF_Ezequiel said:
I'm implying you use outdated graphs to make your point. If you are accusing someone of favouritism, you have to supply the evidence to support your claims. With that I mean since 2011. In that year they played 6 of their 12 matches in SA at 7. In 2010 they played 6 of 11 matches in SA at 7, a higher percentage so you could state it has been getting better according to your implications based on facts. Nobody complained though in 2010!

This year it will be 8 out of 12 SA based matches at 7 but still in the 7 years since your graphs have been around, it's only this year the Stormers have more than 2/3 of the matches played at 7... Man, that's some longterm evil plan by SuperSport......

Oh, forgot to mention the fact that they forgot to use this evil plan last season when the Bulls (5) were the team with the most 7 pm matches while the other 4 teams each had 4 matches at 7 pm.......

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I beg you pardon but why are you bringing that up in this thread? This is a post about the Cats. I am just stating the reason for the Kings entry and the complications there will be for the Cats to be reformed as it was already mentioned logistics was a problem. Those are not graphs but percentages of stakes owned by SAIL and Supersport in all the unions. The only ones they do not have a stake in is the Pumas, Lions and Boland. That is why the they want to replace the Kings with the Lions as they are losing a huge amount in merchandising and gate receipts due to the fact they have absolutely no shares in the Lions franchise. They will however cash in on that if the Kings get entry as they do own a stake in them and the other unions with it. Add a big staduim which is a big income on gate receipts and Keohane getting paid to fill it they are looking for bigger profits from their investment.

The times you were talking about in the Stormers thread was about why they have not been scoring so many tries as a wet Newlands is not a easy place to throw the ball around and SA players do not do that well in the wet. Have a look at all the scores on Newlands especially in wet conditions and you will find its low. We do not have a tropical climate like Durban. When the sun goes down this time of the year the dew starts to fall on the grass.
 
Last edited:
I think both issues are related since in both you are accusing SuperSport of favouritism

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk
 
TRF_Ezequiel said:
I think both issues are related since in both you are accusing SuperSport of favouritism

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No they are different. Let me help you there. SAIL is now the MARC Group Ltd
Here is their stake in WP
http://www.marcgroup.co.za/en/blue_bulls_company_pty_ltd/index.html

Here is their stake in the Bulls
http://www.marcgroup.co.za/en/blue_bulls_company_pty_ltd/index.html

Supersport owns shares in the Cheetahs, Sharks, Griquas and Supersport United FC

I said nothing about favoritism. That is another thread with a different story.

Btw have you ever been to South Africa. Cape Town to be specific?
 
John Mitchell has lashed out at SARU:

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Super15/John-Mitchell-hits-out-at-SARU-20120527

Good on you John, but I think it's a little too late...

BUT, yes Saru has PROMISED the Kings a place in the Super 15 next season, but that's not necessarily saying it's a done deal, with contracts and whatever else (that I know of).

Also, is there maybe a possibility that an SA team can play Heineken Cup next year?
 
I really can't stand Mitchell, but I agree with him here.
Fact is, SARU really don't want to lose a Joburg team, for a variety of reasons. I just get the feeling it wouldn't be this way if it was the Cheetahs.
This whole Kings debacle has been mishandled from start to finish. Everybody knew that there was no way SANZAR would open it to S16 just two seasons after expansion, especially with the current format.

Would the Kings be guaranteed a place as a stand-alone club? I wonder if they would try to merge them with us and make us the Coastal Sharks again.
 
Coastal Sharks? I don't understand why they stopped with that franchise anyway. Why did they have to cut the EP area loose from the franchise in the first place? I know it was because of the Kings-plans, but they should have changed it back after it was obvious the Kings wouldn't be part of the Super Rugby format years ago.

The Sharks franchise is the only one made up from only 1 provincial team by the way.
 
TRF_Ezequiel said:
Coastal Sharks? I don't understand why they stopped with that franchise anyway. Why did they have to cut the EP area loose from the franchise in the first place? I know it was because of the Kings-plans, but they should have changed it back after it was obvious the Kings wouldn't be part of the Super Rugby format years ago.

The Sharks franchise is the only one made up from only 1 provincial team by the way.
Click to expand...

It's only the Cheetahs that use a Griquas player now and then (particularly 2009-2011). You don't see players from Boland, SWD, Mpumalanga, Griffons etc run out or the other franchises.

It's all politics and money, not rugby, that is driving the Kings forward. I don't want to say they don't deserve a spot as they are the next logical choice but there isn't a spot just yet. Cutting an existing feed (even if the Lions have been a marginal team the last couple of years) to the Springboks is madness though.
 
stormer2010 said:
It's only the Cheetahs that use a Griquas player now and then (particularly 2009-2011). You don't see players from Boland, SWD, Mpumalanga, Griffons etc run out or the other franchises.

It's all politics and money, not rugby, that is driving the Kings forward. I don't want to say they don't deserve a spot as they are the next logical choice but there isn't a spot just yet. Cutting an existing feed (even if the Lions have been a marginal team the last couple of years) to the Springboks is madness though.
Click to expand...

Boland: Willie le Roux :p
 
Next Year Limpopo will have it's own Vodacom Cup team... then the Bulls will have another region of representation...
 

Similar threads

TRF_Cymro
Messam commits to New Zealand rugby until 2013
Replies
2
Views
1K
Larksea
L
TRF_Cymro
Southern Kings could join a Super 16 in 2013
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
gho
G
TRF_Cymro
Brett signs deal in Japan
Replies
3
Views
1K
markshaw
markshaw
TRF_Ezequiel
Sharks interested in signing Ma'a Nonu
Replies
17
Views
3K
TRF_Ezequiel
TRF_Ezequiel
TRF_Cymro
Hore embroiled in contract fiasco
Replies
2
Views
1K
Shaggy
Shaggy

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Top