Lions and Sharks flirting with pro14

[TRF_heineken]

It does seem very strange in retrospect. The impression I got was that the main motivating factor, other than how unpopular the split South African conference format was, was how much money the Rebels and Kings were bleeding.

Well so much for reducing costs. The Rebels are still there bleeding money, and the Kings only have an even longer season and even more travel.

I don't think it's fair to comb the Kings and the Rebels with the same comb. The Kings financial problems started even before their first match was played. But most of their financial issues were because of maladministration by the men in charge. There was even corruption charges brought to the fore. SARU then stepped in when the company in charge of the Franchise was liquidated.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I think this is a fake news article. There has been no mention whatsoever on any reliable site in South Africa about this happening. Not even on the Sharks or Lions homepages.

I really wish that posters would look at more reliable sources for specific countries before just starting a thread and click-baiting everyone.

Wow.
Ok, a couple of points.

1. There is a big logic gap between your statement (the news being fake) and the rationale used to reach that conclusion (not being mentioned on Sharks or Lions homepages). It is not only understandable but also expected for neither of those parties to mention anything about this to anyone else. They are just exploring options, and it is not in their best interest to disclose anything at this point. There is no upside and there is a potential downside. In a nutshell, it is not in the Lions/Sharks best interests to disclose anything, AND they do not have to. Why on earth would they do that then?

2. I read the news, found it interesting, thought others might find it interesting too and that's why i posted it. Pardon me for trying to help with the traffic here...
Although i am not as familiar with UK media as others here might be, i am reasonably well acquainted with times.co.uk and they tend to be reasonably reliable. It's not as if i used the sun or the onion.
Is there a rule here at TRF that prevents me from posting these kind of threads?
If you expect other posters to conduct a forensic due diligence and cross reference sources before posting you are delusional.

And let's assume the worst case scenario: let's assume it is a fake news. Even in that case we will never know and the damage, if any, is negligible at best. It's just a "what if" scenario.

I really wish that posters would look at more reliable sources for specific countries before just starting a thread and click-baiting everyone.

If that wish is sincere, put your money where your mouth is. Talk to TRF staff, make a rule about it, and enforce it.
I'm sure that will work wonders by encouraging others to participate.


---------

A 1 minute google search threw this:

'During discussions, some of the other unions said they'd want to look at joining the Pro14 rather than stay where they are,' Verster conceded to Cape Talk radio.

Verster is the CEO of Cheetah's right?

Source: http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/going-pro

Is Sarurugbymag a reasonably reliable source?
If it is, my foot will be rather happy to make your mouths acquaintance.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I wish WP would join.

1) Better viewing times making it easier to follow for a guy with a day job and kids occupying my mornings over weekends.

2) Id be far, far, far more likely to make the trip to the UK or Italy to support my team rather than visit Aus or NZ and not just due to longer and much more expensive flights.

3) It would mean 1/4 our home matches aren't gonna be near enough ruined by 'Cape Crusaders' who are just a deplorable fan base (generally speakng here) I am sorry to say. I refuse to take my boy to any game in Newlands against NZ opposition.

4) Plain old novelty value. Come on. Shake it up.

 

[die_mole]

I think this is a fake news article. There has been no mention whatsoever on any reliable site in South Africa about this happening. Not even on the Sharks or Lions homepages.

I really wish that posters would look at more reliable sources for specific countries before just starting a thread and click-baiting everyone.

why would the sharks or lions have this posted on their homepage, they are in the business of creating positive PR for their club and not actually spreading news

do you really expect the writer of their article to burn their sources just so you judge them differently?

also... isn't The Times one of the most respected news sources in the world?

As Bruce pointed out... times is owned by Murdoch.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

why would the sharks or lions have this posted on their homepage, they are in the business of creating positive PR for their club and not actually spreading news

do you really expect the writer of their article to burn their sources just so you judge them differently?

also... isn't The Times one of the most respected news sources in the world?

You were doing so well there until the end Mole. The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch and its articles
are slanted to his editorial preferences. I'd imagine it's sports coverage would be quite credible though.

 

[die_mole]

You were doing so well there until the end Mole. The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch and its articles
are slanted to his editorial preferences. I'd imagine it's sports coverage would be quite credible though.

Did not know that... doesn't Murdoch have an invested interest in the success of Super Rugby with the tv rights in Australia?

 

[Durbanite]

I wish WP would join.

Ja, and you can take the Bulls along too! In seriousness, those are some good points I had not considered.

I think SARU could manage one more team heading over to Europe (it should be the Bulls ideally) but I don't see SARU throwing SANZAR or even NZR under the bus by jumping over to Europe all secretively like.

I'd like to see the Sharks stay in SR. It seems to me that it's a dying perspective for some reason, but playing the best is the best way to beat the best and the best are still in SR. It makes sense to rather have a foot in each comp, it gives SARU options and they need to test the waters first anyway, can't choose the Pro 14 over SR based on 2 games or even a season (unless it's extremely successful financially)

With the talk from SA and NZ I doubt we will see any changes until the SR deal has been completed, and NZ have shown they would rather play in SR then a Pacific/Trans-Tasman comp for financial reasons and such for now.

SARU will NOT jeopardize TRC imo, I don't see them giving up yearly tests against NZ for a number of reasons chief among them is that those tests bring in huge revenue but also because it's pretty much the standard we like to hold the boks to as a nation, it's always the goal of the saffas to down NZ. I doubt there is a way to keep TRC going without commitment to SR (it can be done but then NZ and AUS will need to form a comp that brings in the cash) although it wouldn't be the worse thing to lose the comps if we get proper tours back in exchange.

 

[TRF_heineken]

1. There is a big logic gap between your statement (the news being fake) and the rationale used to reach that conclusion (not being mentioned on Sharks or Lions homepages). It is not only understandable but also expected for neither of those parties to mention anything about this to anyone else. They are just exploring options, and it is not in their best interest to disclose anything at this point. There is no upside and there is a potential downside. In a nutshell, it is not in the Lions/Sharks best interests to disclose anything, AND they do not have to. Why on earth would they do that then?

The issue the very first paragraph of that article:

South African rugby franchises are so enthusiastic about playing in a northern-hemisphere club competition that two Super Rugby teams have written to the South African Rugby Union to ask if they can also compete in Europe.

Now, this is where I immediately heard alarm bells with this article. Had both the Lions and the Sharks have written to SARU to ask if they can compete in Europe, then surely at least one single media house in South Africa would have picked it up. Not News24, Rapport, EWN, Daily Maverick or even one of the Gupta-owned news outlets have picked this story up. Yet, a newspaper in England have this story, reliable or not, it's highly unlikely that this happened. If you were to scour through the internet now, you won't find any such news, apart from this article. Which makes it even more suspicious. Did nobody else find this noteworthy??? Not even as a part of a blog???

Hell it's not even on Facebook, twitter, snapchat or instagram!!

2. I read the news, found it interesting, thought others might find it interesting too and that's why i posted it. Pardon me for trying to help with the traffic here...
Although i am not as familiar with UK media as others here might be, i am reasonably well acquainted with times.co.uk and they tend to be reasonably reliable. It's not as if i used the sun or the onion.
Is there a rule here at TRF that prevents me from posting these kind of threads?
If you expect other posters to conduct a forensic due diligence and cross reference sources before posting you are delusional.

There is no rule that I know of, but fake news can be regarded as spam, and if so, we have the right to delete the thread, and even ban the poster. I just think that if an article about a certain team is published, it would always be a good rule of thumb, to check if that same article is posted in that team's local news outlets. You don't see me posting articles about Aussie Rugby that couldn't be found on aussie media sites.

I'm just saying that you should be careful in what you post, credibility of you as a poster is also being put on the line when you start a thread...

And let's assume the worst case scenario: let's assume it is a fake news. Even in that case we will never know and the damage, if any, is negligible at best. It's just a "what if" scenario.

If this was the case, then your ***le of your thread needs to change, and your OP's tone would've been different.

If that wish is sincere, put your money where your mouth is. Talk to TRF staff, make a rule about it, and enforce it.
I'm sure that will work wonders by encouraging others to participate.

We are looking into updating the rules of the forum. I will definitely ask the other mods to consider this request.

A 1 minute google search threw this:

'During discussions, some of the other unions said they'd want to look at joining the Pro14 rather than stay where they are,' Verster conceded to Cape Talk radio.

Verster is the CEO of Cheetah's right?

Source: http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/going-pro

Is Sarurugbymag a reasonably reliable source?
If it is, my foot will be rather happy to make your mouths acquaintance.

Harold Verster said a lot of contradicting things this year. At one stage he insisted that the Cheetahs won't join the pro14. At a stage when it was general knowledge that they were, even though it wasn't officially announced at that time yet.

And the "some of the other unions" doesn't necessarily mean the Bulls, Lions, Sharks or Western Province... there are 14 unions in South Africa. It could just as easily have been the Pumas, Griquas, Leopards, Valke, SWD, Griffons, Border Bulldogs or Boland.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Did not know that... doesn't Murdoch have an invested interest in the success of Super Rugby with the tv rights in Australia?

I don't know about that, but as repellant as I consider Mr Murdoch as an individual I don't think he'd meddle with his sports section on a matter such as this. His Fox covers Super Rugby in the SH but his Sky covers the Pro14 and English league in the NH. I'd consider it a fairly credible source in that respect, although credible sources can still base their stories on false or inaccurate information. I do get the sense the SARU are quite media savvy and could easily pick up the phone to a journalist and give them a story (true or otherwise) if they thought it would aid their negotiating position with their SANZAAR partners.

I personally think this was a perfectly legitimate post and one meriting its own thread given the current climate and the fact this could be a running topic for many months (and years) to come. So thanks to the OP for sharing. If it had been the same story but from a tabloid or a blog, then I could understand some objections as "clickbait" does my head in. But it isn't.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I personally think this was a perfectly legitimate post and one meriting its own thread given the current climate and the fact this could be a running topic for many months (and years) to come. So thanks to the OP for sharing. If it had been the same story but from a tabloid or a blog, then I could understand some objections as "clickbait" does my head in. But it isn't.

I don't think it legitimates it's own thread when we already have other threads that talk about the same topic, even if it's mainly about other teams.

If this article appears to be true, and that the Lions and the Sharks did in fact do all that was said in the article, I will humbly apologize to the OP.

But until then, I will remain resilient about this topic.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Had both the Lions and the Sharks have written to SARU to ask if they can compete in Europe, then surely at least one single media house in South Africa would have picked it up.

You cannot be that naive. I refuse to believe you are that naive and have no understanding, whatsoever, about how PR and media teams work.

Not News24, Rapport, EWN, Daily Maverick or even one of the Gupta-owned news outlets have picked this story up. Yet, a newspaper in England have this story, reliable or not, it's highly unlikely that this happened. If you were to scour through the internet now, you won't find any such news, apart from this article. Which makes it even more suspicious. Did nobody else find this noteworthy??? Not even as a part of a blog???

Hell it's not even on Facebook, twitter, snapchat or instagram!!

Not true. Why do you lie?
I've came across the article in facebook, twitter and posted links to SARU rugby mag and times.co.uk.

There is no rule that I know of, but fake news can be regarded as spam, and if so, we have the right to delete the thread, and even ban the poster. I just think that if an article about a certain team is published, it would always be a good rule of thumb, to check if that same article is posted in that team's local news outlets. You don't see me posting articles about Aussie Rugby that couldn't be found on aussie media sites.

I'm just saying that you should be careful in what you post, credibility of you as a poster is also being put on the line when you start a thread...

Two points:

1) Since you would be accusing me of spamming, the burden of proof would lie with you. Not only that, but for it to constitute spam you would need to demonstrate:
a) intent from my part
b) that the news are actually fake

Good luck with that.
As you've said to other posters in the past: lawyered...

2)You just said what i did could be regarded as spam. If you think so, and given that you, as a mod, are here to enforce the forum rules, put your money where your mouth is.

Regarding the credibility, well, that's just ludicrous. I didn't come here and swore an oath to whatever times.co.uk or SARU rugby mag write. I picked up something from a source that looked reliable, found the info interesting and that was it.

If this was the case, then your ***le of your thread needs to change, and your OP's tone would've been different.

Fair enough. Edited original post (added a question mark) so the thin skinned like yourself don't get panic attacks or anything.

I will definitely ask the other mods to consider this request.

Good for you. You mentioned you are a lawyer, so i have to assume you are familiar with the concept of retroactivity and how that would invalidate actions towards this thread (lawyered part II).

Harold Verster said a lot of contradicting things this year. At one stage he insisted that the Cheetahs won't join the pro14. At a stage when it was general knowledge that they were, even though it wasn't officially announced at that time yet.

And the "some of the other unions" doesn't necessarily mean the Bulls, Lions, Sharks or Western Province... there are 14 unions in South Africa. It could just as easily have been the Pumas, Griquas, Leopards, Valke, SWD, Griffons, Border Bulldogs or Boland.

Grasping straws there. You look desperate. Since you are talking about new rules, why don't you suggest anything posted related to the Cheetah's CEO should be deleted, and the poster banned. I mean, by your own logic, it'd be unreliable and spam.
Keep us posted about how that goes. I'm convinced that sort of suggestion would make you even more popular.

If this article appears to be true, and that the Lions and the Sharks did in fact do all that was said in the article, I will humbly apologize to the OP.

That's awfully kind of you, particularly when we all know it will be impossible to prove one way or another.

 

[smartcooky]

You were doing so well there until the end Mole. The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch and its articles
are slanted to his editorial preferences. I'd imagine it's sports coverage would be quite credible though.

Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers.

The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country.
The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country.
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country.
The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big ***s.

 

[Brigantine]

Cruz vs Heineken is a storm in a teacup.

Sure it's pehaps a marginal case of trolling, but all this talk of rules and moderation is a massive overreaction.

If the OP was 12h earlier or later and smartcooky got a word in before all the NH trolls did, this would have been a much less interesting thread!

 

[die_mole]

Cruz vs Heineken is a storm in a teacup.

Sure it's pehaps a marginal case of trolling, but all this talk of rules and moderation is a massive overreaction.

If the OP was 12h earlier or later and smartcooky got a word in before all the NH trolls did, this would have been a much less interesting thread!

i don't understand how smartcooky did anything other than show how this story is similar to like 99% of sports stories

1. "sources" report something
2. people involved in story deny it
3. 50/50 whether or not it comes true

 

[TRF_heineken]

Cruz vs Heineken is a storm in a teacup.

Sure it's pehaps a marginal case of trolling, but all this talk of rules and moderation is a massive overreaction.

If the OP was 12h earlier or later and smartcooky got a word in before all the NH trolls did, this would have been a much less interesting thread!

Of course it is a storm in a teacup. And I wasn't attacking the poster personally, or at least that wasn't my intention, I was actually trying to help the poster, and point out where he could improve when starting other threads.

I do however feel that Cruz is still missing the point that I was trying to make, and instead is going on and on about Lawyering me and pointing back to the article in the times.

Also, and I don't think it was intentional, but he mentions SARU rugby mag. Even though that magazine has no direct affiliation with SARU. It's a private media entity.

I have been scouring through various media outlets, and still can't find anything. Maybe Bell Pottinger had something to do with this story being 'buried' in SA rugby circles? Or maybe the Lions and the Sharks hired the same PR company to handle their PR work and have done a great job to leave this out of the press.

As for the blogged article Cruz was referring to, the writer of that blog referred to a hypothetical situation and quoted Mr. Verster:

Until then, there's no point in South Africa's best teams heading north unless they can compete against the top teams from England and France. But herein lies the rub: there are talks that the European qualification process could be reviewed next year to possibly allow for the South African sides to compete for promotion. In theory, if all goes well, who's to say we won't see the Bulls, Lions, Sharks and Stormers joining the European party after 2020?

'During discussions, some of the other unions said they'd want to look at joining the Pro14 rather than stay where they are,' Verster conceded to Cape Talk radio. 'There are lots of positives; we're in it for three years and then we'll see from there. The upside is, if we are able to enter into the European Cup, for example, which is still up for negotiation – not for this year, but for the year after – there is the potential for some substantial increases in the financial gains for us.'

Other unions, no matter who they are, are allowed to look at joining other leagues, and along with SARU, they will compare the feasibility of such a move, weighing up the pro's and con's on staying or joining the other leagues.

But again, that won't happen until after 2020. And nothing has been made final of what will happen after 2020. All this limited speculation is doing is driving even more disparity to the volatile situation.

Yet, there was no mention about the statement from SARU of 3 days ago: http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/south-africa-committed-to-sanzaar-roux-20170901

South African Rugby Union chief executive Jurie Roux has re-stated his country's commitment to staying in SANZAAR.

While the Cheetahs and Southern Kings are set to play their first games in the PRO14 competition at the weekend, it is not a sign that South Africa is looking exclusively to a future in Europe.

"We can never have eight franchises in SANZAAR, we can have four or five maximum and maybe we'll even go down to three.

"But at least now we have options.

"We still need to play against Australia and New Zealand to be the best, so I don't see the relationship ending but we'll have more exposure up north."

 

[Brigantine]

*eight* franchises? What so Lions and Sharks go north, but SARU keep up their SANZAAR presence by adding the Griquas and Pumas?

 

[Durbanite]

*eight* franchises? What so Lions and Sharks go north, but SARU keep up their SANZAAR presence by adding the Griquas and Pumas?

More likely the other way round

 

[profitius]

I think they need to be in a position to retain most of their players before they think about adding more teams.

 

[smartcooky]

I think they need to be in a position to retain most of their players before they think about adding more teams.

Well having two teams in the Pro14 just might help them to do that. Both the Cheetahs and the Kings will count as domestic SAF teams every bit as much as the Lions, Sharks, Bulls and Stormers do in SR. I can't imagine that SARU won't encourage players from the four SR teams, or next level Curie Cup sides, who are thinking of going north, to first consider the Kings or the Cheetahs, sweetening the pot by putting them on an equal eligibility/selection footing with the four SR teams? They'd be mad if they didn't

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well having two teams in the Pro14 just might help them to do that. Both the Cheetahs and the Kings will count as domestic SAF teams every bit as much as the Lions, Sharks, Bulls and Stormers do in SR. I can't imagine that SARU won't encourage players from the four SR teams, or next level Curie Cup sides, who are thinking of going north, to first consider the Kings or the Cheetahs, sweetening the pot by putting them on an equal eligibility/selection footing with the four SR teams? They'd be mad if they didn't

This is what we are all hoping for. And I think this is going to be the first step into trying to convert to the centralized contracts system.

Most of the current Kings squad are loaned players from other unions. WP, Blue Bulls, Sharks and Lions all loaned out about 4 players each to the Kings. And it was players that didn't feature prominently for their home union in the Currie Cup. Prime example would be Rossouw de Klerk. He is probably 5th or 6th on the totem pole for props at the Blue Bulls now, but was the starting prop for the Kings against the Scarlets.

I think as soon as the money starts flowing in, we could see some big moves and changes coming to the SA Rugby contracting. We have also seen SARU now securing 3 big name sponsors for the Springboks, and have indicated that it will take them about 18 more months to get back to where they were before they had that big financial slump.

This all bodes well in trying to keep the players in SA. Springbok Contracts, a choice between playing Super Rugby or Pro14, all points to players getting properly compensated no matter for which team they are playing.

The one criticism I have is that the Currie Cup is currently a watered down tournament, and SARU has even admitted that they will be looking at changing the structure for the next season (yet again). But this year the Currie Cup started while the Super Rugby playoffs were in full swing, so that was 3 weeks where some of the teams couldn't use their top players. And now with the Pro14, as well as the RC, a lot of players aren't featured in the CC.

My biggest hope/wish is that we could lure some of our players already in the NH back to our shores, especially those playing in the Pro14 like Marcel Coetzee and Louis Ludick. Particularly those that can form part of the Springbok setup ahead of the 2019 RWC.