jaguares 2018

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I dont agree at all. Rugby at a "Pro" level is about winning.

I guess here is where we disagree (nothing wrong with that). I believe (do not "know", but the evidence i've seen strongly suggests this is true) that if you want to win, in the long term, changing the rules in the middle of the game and screwing up people will come at a huge cost.
And lets be completely fair: from the looks of it, we have zero chance of winning the 2019 RWC with or without euro players. Zero. If there is a right time to change the rules it'd be after the wc.

I am talking as a fan here: if you give me these two options

A) Use the team as we have it now and not qualify for the play offs
B) Use euro players and make it to the QF

I'd pick A) without hesitation. I think i'd send the right signal to the players AND the message to management that when they try to impose a rule without thinking things through there are consequences.

I understand playing for the national team is a factor, but consider this, half of our best 10 players decided it was not as big of a factor for them to stay and play for Jaguares.
The salary differential (Europe vs Arg) is already huge, screwing the ones who stayed is the last thing you want. Keep them relatively happy. We're not asking for them to be pampered of anything, just keep your word.

UAR/Jags/Pumas card doesn't come from having a large bank account. It comes (or came) from pride, from the sense of belonging, from respect and for some, being close to family/friends. You can play that card to keep them but ONLY if you keep your word. Once you break it, it'll take a long time to be credible again.
By not keeping their word UAR/Jas/Pumas are destroying that, not just for 2019, for for quite a few years. I have little doubt this affect our grassroots rugby directly. These guys all come from "local" clubs. They talk to each other. Having said that, how big is the impact? No clue.
This is of course, speculation (from both sides) as it is impossible to read people's minds, but i believe it to be a reasonable educated guess.

Let me present another hypothetical, just for the sake of it: lets say that winning short term is indeed all that matters. Fine, then whoever decided to impose the rule should own up and say: "listen, i know we promised you something else, but the national team has to be above everything, so we have to change it. With that in mind, and given that we've screwed you royally, we have to face the consequences of our mistake. Here is my and my staff's resignation letters and our most sincere apologies".

If and when i see something like that, i'd believe it's about winning. When players **** up, they pay consequences (except JMH, naturally). Maybe management should do too.
People understand mistakes and that the national team comes first. What they do not understand is that for those who made the decision to keep their job while others have to pay for the consequences of their mistakes.

If you close a deal by shaking hands and it works, you are likely to do it again. If it doesn't work, chances are you'll conduct a forensic due diligence next time as you don't want to be screwed over again. Trust is an asset and it looks like they are about to lose it.

how much of a surprise would it be to the Jags/European players?

It's speculation, course, but i'd say it is a surprise. With hindsight, there were some signs, but those came late: the rule initially was, if i recall correctly, that euro based players couldn't represent Argentina, but then they allowed Juan Imhoff to play for the sevens team a couple of games.

But if surprises are what you're looking for, look no further: UAR decided to use Twickenham as our home stadium against Australia in 2016. More travel, no home crowd, family and friends 10 thousand km away, the lots. Everything a player needs to excel.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I was just thinking about Messi's clause and it got me thinking.
Context: allegedly, Messi included a clause in his latest contract where, if Barcelona cannot participate in the top league of Spain, France, Germany or England, he is a free agent.
On paper it looks like one of those ridiculous situations that could never happen, except the spanish footie assoc implied that if Catalunya became independent, Barcelona wouldnt be able to participate in the Spanish competition (that's not necessarily true but they are probably using it as leverage).
It's basically a risk that the player doesn't want to take so he puts a clause to mitigate it.
I was picturing a similar situation while negotiating a contract between UAR and player.

UAR: so, we've agreed on everything, lets close the deal
Player: Yeah, about that. I was thinking about something.
UAR: What now....
Player: Well, following up on what you said, it should be nothing, a mere formality.
UAR: ok, let's hear it...
Player: Well, you assured me that players from Europe couldn't play for Pumas, and since i'm staying, that's kinda good for me.
UAR: Right.
Player: Well, i'd like that in writing please. Specifically, i'd like a clause where i get compensated if that changes.
UAR: What?
Player: yes, you assure me of something, so why not putting it in the contract? If you are that sure, this changes nothing for you, and it makes me feel better.
UAR: That's not how it works.
Player: So you are telling me that you cannot put in a contract what you pretty much promised me verbally?
UAR: you shouldn't look at it that way
Player: i don't tell you how to look at it, please don't tell me how to look at it.
UAR: not what i meant.
Player: well, i am the one "believing" you
UAR: yes, so?
Player: well, you've screwed Jaguares players in 2018, so i'd like to cover my bases.
UAR: not happening
Player: That's speaks volumes of how much your word is worth. Racing 92/Leicester, here i come then. I'll send you a postcard.
----------------------

Not gonna happen, but it should.
It would actually make more sense here than in Messi's case. Barcelona FC doesn't control whether Catalunya becomes independent or not. UAR does control who plays for Pumas.

I digress.... a lot.

 

[petite]

as i said before ist really hard situation for uar
either you keep jags and the ban (so you can have a decent side or at least try)
or you stick to the amateur rugby that sells to europe and the they come back for los pumas (cos a lousy jags would be kicked out of sr)
maybe theres a way in the midle but if i had to choose one model out of these 2 i`ll go with the first.

but what i really would like is uar keeping their word and then after 19 wc the can do what ever with the rule.
the main issue is not to back stab the people who trusted you.
it was unreal in the first place to think that jags will be wininng often. this is a new sistem a new tournament and a new rugby for arg amateur situation.
we are so far awary of our own pro league that i just dont see a way out.
we could end like our football, europe based players, great material, no team!
finnaly but important, who are these europeans that can change pumas so much!? its not lomu and nonu waiting to join.
yeah figallo, imhoff, isa could join rigth away but i dont think it would make a big diference so youll be basicaly betraying everybody failing to keep your word and setting a really bad record, for nothing.
i dont think that having a bad world cup is so bad, what differece it makes if we make it to 8ths or cuarter final or even leave in the stage groups? not much.
if this is the actual situation of arg rugby so be it.
if for the result, then we should do like italy and bring a few fijians/tongans o whatever to live in B.A and play for pumas (ridiculous)

 

[Horacito]

To me, the results totally allow the UAR to back down in this policy, I tell you. Maybe not completely, but starting a cuota system with a limit of european based- players to play in national jersey. Maybe 5-10 players in europe could play in pumas.

 

[petite]

and who would these 5 - 10 players be?

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I have two issues with that line of argument. First one is that i don't think those 5-10 players would have made much of a difference. Maybe we would have won against Wales last year, or Scotland.
It's a monumental problem (upsetting half of jaguares) for a potential win in 2 friendlies. Not good enough in my book.
And second, it's a matter of principles. It's easy to keep your word when things are going good. Character and principles come to light, precisely, when things are not going well.

I see your point Horacio, but i guess we'll have to agree to disagree (again, nothing wrong with that!).

Sds.

 

[Brigantine]

If the Jags eventually leave SR... (which I don't think will happen, but IF)... Will UAR stay a part of SANZAAR and TRC anyway? Even if Japan & the Sunwolves are doing well?

In 2012-15, did most of the Europe-based players come back each year for the TRC?

 

[FNS]

and who would these 5 - 10 players be?

Figalo, Socino, Isa, Bosch(center now meh. 2016 yes/2017 meh), Imhoff, Fernadez patricio, Axel Muller, Benjamin Urdapilleta, Mariano Galarza, facundo bosch(prop), Estelles. Plus add Herrera(i dont care about him realy) and Cordero(meh). Plus Carizza. Realy which players are we missing? Jeez half a team worth of starters or good back ups. Props we need, ball carriers we need, finishers we need, depth we realy need. The argument of "we are not missing" on anything is nonsense. You are probably right though, changing now will create a huge upset.

The Issue here, the real issue is that this system does not work and more time will not make it work. Players are going to be 2/3 years in Jags get experience and leave. How much time till sponsors say "hey guys our brand is being associated to losers"??

 

[AM_Bokke]

I personally can't see why a SANZAAR union would select overseas players at all. It is clear to me that the SANZAAR unions are in direct competition with European clubs. SANZAAR offers a full season with Super Rugby and TRC. It's one or the other. If SANZAAR wants to grow its international visibility and revenue I see domestic based selection as the only way.

It also works in that the three best national teams in the world: NZ, Eng and Ireland, all require that their players play in their domestic leagues. And NZ and Ire have excellent player management.

I also don't see why a European based player would want to both take time away from their primary employer AND have no break from rugby to play in SH competitions. It seems easier to just exclude them than actually ask a person to do that. Is overseas selection really much of an option anyway?

I say this as a Bok fan, and there is a reasonable argument that if the Boks could select from all of their overseas players that they would beat England. So the immediate sporting incentives are there to select overseas players, it's really just a question of what is the right long term policy for the sport.

This is a problem for rugby in general. Very few countries have significant rugby infrastructure so investment is needed by unions to grow the sport. And in places where rugby is traditionally strong other sports like basketball, soccer and AFL are growing, all of which are easier to organize, easier to play, and are safer. Unions need the money that top players generate to keep the sport alive and healthy in their respective countries.

I agree that changing the Pumas selection policy over the past few years would not have materially changed their results. Maybe they could have beaten SA or Aus one more time or pulled away from Scotland but they would still have close to the same record. Isa is a great player of course but I don't really see his skill set as what the Pumas are missing either.

England and France are wealthier than NZ, SA and Arg, and larger Aus, no doubt, but SANZAAR has a lot of assets in its own right like large cities, access to all time zones, good weather and the ability to prioritize player welfare. To me it's really a matter of SANZAAR unions being organized enough to maximize the return on the assets that they have. There's also nothing great about Bath, Exeter, Clermont, and La Rochelle. No business person would put an international entertainment enterprise in those towns. London, Manchester, Madrid, Barcalona, and Munich these cities are not.

At the end of the day the fans will decide about selection based upon their engagement with the respective teams. But I can't personally see SANZAAR unions selecting overseas based players as good for rugby in the long term.

 

[Horacito]

Absolutely, keep the selection in southern hermisphere is the right thing in the long term, I don't think anyone can deny that.
Problem is we are playing with shorter time here: we just saw two teams out of SR, and it seems the competition has huge problems to bring down NZ teams, which is a really important aspect of making competition exciting: in other words, SR is in the way of reformation, perhaps a complete to partial re-do in the next few years if things keep going like this, and it doesn't look like jags can improve their performance. Let's say it this way: if results this yeat are as previous ones, jags could not justify their inclusion in SR. At the same time, if jags keep being poisonous to the pumas (which they are) they cannot justify their use in the argentinian rugby system. Argentina, one way or the other, needs some results. Is it correct to be impatient? It is not, but that's the world we live in. The dynamic pumas-jags is terrible. The performance is getting worse by the minute after WC 2015.

Now, the truth is Argentina needs 2 SR teams, but how can you back that? One team with 99% pumas is doing absolutely horrible. We need to teams to get the best 30 to play pumas. Also, SR just ditched two teams. They cannot have another argie loosing every match.

Truth is we need a solution, we need to bring back some guys we're missing, because we are extremely dependant on some people who play in the jags/ pumas, like Sánchez, who is the only realistic option as fly half and he knows it. We need better 1st row.

So to bring a solution that mixes both seems convenient. We can put and end to it after 2019, but for this kind of mid-term problem (results) we can find a mid term solution (cuota system with european based players).

cheers

 

[petite]

Figalo, Socino, Isa, Bosch(center now meh. 2016 yes/2017 meh), Imhoff, Fernadez patricio, Axel Muller, Benjamin Urdapilleta, Mariano Galarza, facundo bosch(prop), Estelles. Plus add Herrera(i dont care about him realy) and Cordero(meh). Plus Carizza. Realy which players are we missing? Jeez half a team worth of starters or good back ups. Props we need, ball carriers we need, finishers we need, depth we realy need. The argument of "we are not missing" on anything is nonsense. You are probably right though, changing now will create a huge upset.

The Issue here, the real issue is that this system does not work and more time will not make it work. Players are going to be 2/3 years in Jags get experience and leave. How much time till sponsors say "hey guys our brand is being associated to losers"??[/QUOTE]

Dear fns: sory but i dont see any solution in that list.
yes, said it before figalo isa and imof would be a great adding
but the rest i dont see them as important
part of this process is looking for future players: so both cariza an galarza that are 33 or something dont have much future but for this wc at least one of them would help.
i ll go one by one!
bosch centre he is also old .
bosch hooker he is uncapped..
estelles and socino are also 30 something good players but the had their chances and where not selected when they could. why now? dont think the are any better than the actual centers
patricio fernandez and axel muller would be a good addings to the process but are both uncaped and inexperienced at this level, to be an effective las minute adition.
and then thers the ex jags cordero penalty machine herrera and noguera paz they clearly didnt make any difference while they where in Jags or pumas the are part of the failiure too
agree the front row is the most damaged figallo and herrera will be missed.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

If the Jags eventually leave SR... (which I don't think will happen, but IF)... Will UAR stay a part of SANZAAR and TRC anyway? Even if Japan & the Sunwolves are doing well?

I don't know. We used to play TRC without having a SR franchise so i that could work. I'm 10x more worried about Jaguares. This season could very well end up in tears for us. We generally have a decent start and collapse mid season. This season we have 3 tought games to begin with (Stormers, Lions and Hurricanes) and, temperamental as we are, that'll be a tremendous test for us.
Having said that, i thought we'd do well in our first season, so don't take my predictions too seriously.
Happy to be wrong on this one.

In 2012-15, did most of the Europe-based players come back each year for the TRC?

They did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Rugby_Championship#Argentina

England and France are wealthier than NZ, SA and Arg, and larger Aus, no doubt, but SANZAAR has a lot of assets in its own right like large cities, access to all time zones, good weather and the ability to prioritize player welfare.

I don't think large cities are that big of an asset in this respect, and the time zone thingie is more a liability than an asset. When i watch Jaguares' games sometimes they are at circa 5-7 am on a Saturday(when playing in NZ/Aus), 3-4 pm when in RSA and midnight or later when they play in Argentina. I spend over half my time in Europe and it's easier (WAY easier) for me to find a pub that broadcasts Pakistan vs Sri Lanka cricket than Reds vs Jaguares. I am not exaggerating.
No person other than a relatively loyal follower will adjust to such a schedule.
Don't take the posters here as a benchmark. We pretty much watch anything. By outside world standards we're fanatics.

It's way easier for me to follow the cheetah's (now playing PRO 14) than Jaguares.

 

[AM_Bokke]

While I dom't know, but I would think that a cricket match featuring Pakistan would have a larger audience in the UK than any Super Rugby match.

I just think that multiple time zones allows for SANZAAR to better negotiate global broadcasting rights. They can offer afternoon and evening matches to basically everyone. Arg needs s second team though.

And of course big cities matter. Big cities have the ability to drive memberships, merchandising and ratings. They can also drive international engagement as tourists and visitors actually go to them. I will attend my first professional rugby match this spring in Tokyo.

While Bristol is a nice city in England with good institutions and culture, if I were a suit at the Aviva Priermiership I would not be excited about them replacing a club located near west London.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Excuse me, but it's as if you were under the impression that most people follow rugby live or something. Attendance to live games, at this level is what, less than less than 10% of live tv viewership, and i believe i'm being incredibly generous.

And regarding the merchandise, you don't need a big city either. Shops online are generally cheaper and if you spend the average of a rugby jersey they will deliver it for free.
Today, a person in Dusseldorf, Brussels, Rotterdam or Lisbon has pretty much the same access to rugby merchandise than a guy who lives in front of Twickenham.
Might be a bit different for Sanzaar (Argentina's customs are a mess) but within countries, online is the easiest way and most brands (adidas, canterbury, etc) have online stores offering most of their line ups in Europe, NZ, Aus, etc.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

major cities just mean that everything involved running the club (facilities, lodging for opposing teams, paying non-playing staff) is just more expensive... you get the same cut from league revenues but have more expenses (which is why MLR is smart to be starting in less espensive cities, don't know if moving into vancouver, nyc, and boston are good moves but that's something else)

for your comparison on bristol and l irish, bristol absolutley kills them when it comes to attendance

i don't think any rugby club has created a brand that transcends rugby (like the yankees have with baseball) where being in a major city would be a larger benefit than having more supporters

and more time zones just means that your audience has less games to watch... your casual fan isn't waking up at 3am to watch even their favorite team

the only SR i watch live are games in argentina or south africa, and i'd imagine Super Rugby needs people a lot less into rugby than I am to be consistent viewers if it wants to succeed

 

[AM_Bokke]

So if Super Rugby was only NZ and Aus then you wouldn't watch any Super Rugby games? Yeah! That's my point.

I would argue that Toronto and Seattle in MLS are new sports franchises in big expensive cities that are also the most financially successful in their league. And those cities are REALLY expensive. No owner would trade them for Sacramento and Syracuse because of lower operating costs.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

So if Super Rugby was only NZ and Aus then you wouldn't watch any Super Rugby games? Yeah! That's my point.

I would argue that Toronto and Seattle in MLS are new sports franchises in big expensive cities that are also the most financially successful in their league. And those cities are REALLY expensive. No owner would trade them for Sacramento and Syracuse because of lower operating costs.

Yet Toronto can't turn a profit. Seattle was a perfect storm of a soccer crazy town and a town that was spurned by one pro team and whose other summer team is crappy.

If you have to double your teams to double your viewership, your not exactly gaining anything as you just have to split the pie more ways.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

So if Super Rugby was only NZ and Aus then you wouldn't watch any Super Rugby games?

It's a tricky question to answer. I don't have any numbers to back up either side here.
On paper yes, you can appeal to a broader audience by having more time zones, but in my experience, people who follow rugby tend to have some sort of routine.
You go to the pub with friends within a certain time frame. Having to follow your own team through 4+ time zones (distant ones!) is hardly convenient.
It's not only a logistical nightmare for the players, you REALLY need to wanna watch the games in order to adjust to the schedule. Again, if you are in one city, your team's games can go from 5 am in the morning to 1 am at night.

In most euro cities they only show SR at the pubs when it's being played in South Africa, and it's 100% time zone related. Early in the morning bars are closed and after 10 pm no one cares about sports. Some bars open early for the rugby championship (Aus vs NZ game), but hardly any bar will open early for you to watch i.e. Blues vs Chiefs.

 

[FNS]

When we play against NZ/AUS in SR probably a 25% of the jags audience watch the games if they lucky.

 

[AM_Bokke]

Yet Toronto can't turn a profit. Seattle was a perfect storm of a soccer crazy town and a town that was spurned by one pro team and whose other summer team is crappy.

If you have to double your teams to double your viewership, your not exactly gaining anything as you just have to split the pie more ways.

Yeah well, Bath, Worcester, Glouster and everyone else bar Exeter the in the Primiership don't turn a profit either. But Jaguares do.

Toronto FC could make a profit if they wanted to but obviously they are sinking money into being a big draw in their town. It's the same game the Aviva Premiership owners are playing.