Kings (still) hung out to dry

Written by Rob Otto (robdylan)

Posted in :EP Kings, Original Content, Super Rugby on 17 Jan 2013 at 09:57
Tagged with : , , , , , , ,

We’ve said this before and we’ll say it again – by taking far longer than was necessary (or defensible) to confirm the Kings’ Super Rugby inclusion, the South African Rugby Union effectively ended any possible chance they may have had to build a competitive squad ahead of the 2013 competition. The national body has had ample opportunity to right that wrong by taking various steps to mitigate the damage, but instead seem to prefer piling the pain on further.

The first slap in the face was the refusal to entrench the Kings for at least two seasons, thus allowing them the benefit of a year to “find their feet” in this competition, without the spectre of immediate relegation. The team they have replaced, the Lions, were given almost endless chances to get their own house in order before being dumped; for the Kings, they’re going to have to get it all right within a year, or they’ll probably never see Super Rugby again.

Apart from the Kings, the newest team in Super Rugby is the Melbourne Rebels and it’s interesting to compare and contrast between the level of support that the Australian Rugby Union has afforded to its fledgling franchise and that which SARU is extending to the Kings. The ARU seemed to feel that it was in the best interests of Australian rugby as a whole for the Rebels to succeed, hence extending some leeway in terms of the Australian-qualified players requirement that affects the other franchises. The thinking here was that in order to grow rugby in the Melbourne region, a competitive and successful team was a must and if that came at the cost of (temporarily) having fewer Australians (or Melbornians or whatever) in the side, that was ok.

SARU’s refusal to afford any such concession to the Kings is just petty and starting to seem almost vindictive. It’s not like the Kings are trying to poach bloody Richie McCaw here; rather they’ve looked at what’s available on the market (given that they were only able to really contract big names once all the good players were already tied up) and have tried to bring in a few guys with some international experience, to balance a squad that is otherwise very green indeed. There are five players in the squad currently who are not “South African” (although Daniel Adongo, to me, is probably more South African than he is anything else, certainly in rugby terms) and the Kings are still “locked in negotiation” with SARU in order to be allowed to include more than two of those in their final squad.

C’mon, SARU – give the Kings a hand. It’s YOUR FAULT that they’re struggling to sign local players, why not do what you can to right that wrong?

Boetie Britz, Rynier Bernardo, David Bullbring, Kevin Buys, Cornell du Preez, Jacques Engelbrecht, Jaco Engels, Schalk Ferreira, Ross Geldenhuys, Lizo Gqoboka, Virgil Lacombe, Tomas Leonardi, Bandise Maku, Edgar Marutlulle, Mpho Mbiyozo, Darron Nell, Daniel Adongo, Devin Oosthuizen, Steven Sykes, Wimpie van der Walt, Luke Watson (captain)

Demetri Catrakilis, Ronnie Cooke, Wesley Dunlop, Siyanda Grey, Johan Herbst, Michael Killian, SP Marais, Scott Mathie, Waylon Murray, Hadleigh Parkes, Sergeal Petersen, Marcello Sampson, Shakes Soyizwapi, Wayne Stevens, Andries Strauss, Elrich van Vuuren, Shaun Venter, Nicolas Vergallo, George Whitehead


  • I disagree completely. I am no fan of the Lions and I believe that there should be promotion/relegation in Super Rugby, or have qualification work like the UEFA Champions league with the best domestic teams making it in each year. In terms of the Kings, their argument has always been that they have the ability and quality to compete in Super Rugby so why would they need more time as they have always claimed to be strong enough? Their other argument was that they needed to come in to develop their home players who come from the region but move to bigger clubs, so why do they need to buy in so many players? They are there to develop not to go shopping.

  • Comment 1, posted at 17.01.13 10:20:31 by Seth101 Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • To add to that they shouldn’t be in at all, in life you have to earn and work for something. To often in our country it is just handed to you, much like this case.

  • Comment 2, posted at 17.01.13 10:22:08 by Seth101 Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • You know.. IT might not be the best team but I think with the right coaching the Kings can still field a competitive team ala the Cheetahs or Rebels/Force. 1. Jaco Engels 2.Edgar Maratlulle 3.Ross Geldenhuys 4. Steven Sykes 5. Daniel Adongo 6. Luke Watson 7.Jacques Engelbrecht 8. Darron Nell 9. Nicolas Vergallo 10. Demetri Catrakilis 11. Michael Killian 12. Siyanda Grey 13. Waylon Murray 14. Wayne Stevens (not an out and out wing but could do well) 15. Wesley Dunlop Reserves: 16. Maku 17. Buys 18. Bullbring 19. Mbiyozo 20. Mathie 21. Strauss 22. Whitehead

  • Comment 3, posted at 17.01.13 10:24:23 by Wolmaestro Reply

  • @Wolmaestro (Comment 3) : I dont want to be negative but when they play the crusaders đŸ˜³ they’re in for a rough day

  • Comment 4, posted at 17.01.13 10:26:57 by Talent Reply
  • Kings vs Force in round 2. What a lekker LMS pick that could be :mrgreen:

  • Comment 5, posted at 17.01.13 10:34:57 by SteelShark Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition WinnerCompetition Winner
  • @Seth101 (Comment 1) : Initially I was going to disagree with you, and say that although I’m not a fan of the Kings, the way they’re being treated is making me actually hope they succeed.

    But then on reading your comment again, I think I actually agree with you. The King’s appointment to Superrugby was a politically driven motivation, based on the premise that the Eastern Cape players were being overlooked and that by creating a Superrugby franchise in the Eastern Cape this would be rectified. So… surely then the Kings should be made up of predominantly Eastern Cape players, not the leftovers from other Unions and overseas based players?

    Like you said… their main motivation for being included was that they had the resources, and that they could perform better than the Lions. So then… use those resources and perform better than the Lions!

  • Comment 6, posted at 17.01.13 10:46:29 by CS Reply

  • @Seth101 (Comment 1) : you don’t think the fact that SARU confirmed their inclusion less than 6 months before the start of the competition, after all the normal contracting windows had closed, somewhat limited their options? I mean, it’s not like all the EP players who have left over the years all suddenly streamed back the moment the announcement was made?

  • Comment 7, posted at 17.01.13 10:47:15 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (Comment 7) : yes I agree they were told late, but should never have got in at all. And no they players can’t all just go home in the blink of an eye, but then don’t claim to have the team and strength to compete when you don’t, there introduction into super rugby was done on false reasoning that’s my point.

  • Comment 8, posted at 17.01.13 10:53:58 by Seth101 Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @CS (Comment 6) : can we not give them more than 1 year to deliver on the promise? I think those who expect the Kings to suddenly field a team comprising only local players and yet also succeed well enough in their first year to avoid relegation are frankly living in lala-land.

  • Comment 9, posted at 17.01.13 10:56:12 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @Seth101 (Comment 8) : why do you say they “should never have got in at all”? What is your justification for dismissing the Kings as a Super Rugby prospect out of hand?

  • Comment 10, posted at 17.01.13 10:57:00 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @Seth101 (Comment 1) : I think you being silly.its not they fault they didn’t get given enough time they just trying to make the best out of a shity situation.if the kings get spanked everyweek its not gonna benefit anybody much like the lions did in 2010.they said they would be competitive looking at the stats of quality players they produce and leave the province they never said they could do it in a year obvously they need to be given a fair chance and what rob I think is trying to say weather they deserve to be there or not it doesn’t matter now because they are but they need to be given a fair chance which they are not getting at the moment

  • Comment 11, posted at 17.01.13 11:15:10 by Poisy Reply
  • @Talent (Comment 4) : True, I dont think they’ll come close to pushing the top 7/8 teams, but I think that they can realistically avoid the wooden spoon in the competition, maybe even our conference… Which is at least on par with the team they replaced. Im just glad Kanko and Keegan didnt follow Sykesie back home.

  • Comment 12, posted at 17.01.13 11:17:34 by Wolmaestro Reply

  • @Poisy (Comment 11) : thanks Poisy.

    Far too many people let their personal (and frankly rather petty) dislike for the Watsons taint their view of the entire Eastern Cape region.

    I think they deserve our support, if for no other reason than the 8 former Sharks in their ranks đŸ™‚

  • Comment 13, posted at 17.01.13 11:55:42 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @Seth101 (Comment 1) :

    Don’t quite know where to start but here goes: their argument has always been that they have the ability and quality to compete in Super Rugby…

    Yes it is, if they are given an equal, extended opportunity like most other teams (read Lions/Cheetahs) had in the competition.

    Their other argument was that they needed to come in to develop their home players who come from the region but move to bigger clubs

    I think you will find the numbers of players leaving the region, or that has left the region in search of better competitions like Super Rugby quite easily around the web.

    They do have a larger player base, that is a fact – they just don’t have the means to retain their top players and that is not going to change with a 1-year gig only as they currently got. Most players are tied up in 2, 3 and even 5 year deals at other franchises and unions – it is security, one year offers no player security.

  • Comment 14, posted at 17.01.13 12:24:17 by MornĂ© Reply
  • @robdylan (Comment 13) : yes they do untill they verse us :mrgreen: than let’s give them a healthy hiding than we can be friends with them again heheheh

  • Comment 15, posted at 17.01.13 12:28:14 by Poisy Reply
  • Kings deserve nothing, period.

  • Comment 16, posted at 17.01.13 12:34:50 by Uli Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter
    Uli Boelie

    Reading just this makes me want to vomit….. on a Kings jersey….

  • Comment 17, posted at 17.01.13 12:37:42 by Uli Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter
    Uli Boelie
  • It’s simple really; the argument for the King’s inclusion is that based on the number of talented players who originated from the Eastern Cape, and are plying their trade through SA (and abroad), the Kings SHOULD be able to field a competetive side in Super Rugby. Having said that, there is a world of difference in between having the potential to compete in Super Rugby based on junior talent, and being able to do so almost instantaneously.

    Just yesterday an article was posted about the junior players contracted by the Sharks, and one of the topics of discussion was the gulf between junior ranks and top flight rugby. Junior player need to be nurtured and developed, which includes playing alongside and learning from quality, experienced players. In all of this the players need to be retained, which generally requires financing as well as a degree of on-field success.

    People who object to the Kings recruiting from outside (both the Eastern Cape and the country), and who cannot acknowledge that giving them a one-year shot at succeeding is loading the dice against them are hopelessly misguided, to put it politely.

  • Comment 18, posted at 17.01.13 12:42:04 by Culling Song Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Culling Song
  • @Uli (Comment 17) : Sport24… tabloid trash, especially the readers’ comments. Surely you can find better sources of opinion to follow?

  • Comment 19, posted at 17.01.13 12:56:18 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @Culling Song (Comment 18) : let’s cut to the chase. A lot of people want the Kings to fail.

  • Comment 20, posted at 17.01.13 12:57:07 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (Comment 20) : Yep. And it’s stoopid.

  • Comment 21, posted at 17.01.13 12:59:15 by Culling Song Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Culling Song
  • @Culling Song (Comment 21) : I agree… stuck in the cave.

  • Comment 22, posted at 17.01.13 13:07:32 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • Personally and for the good of Springbok rugby I’d prefer all SA teams to only field players eligible for Springbok rugby (whether immediately or in future like the Beast).

    But SARU effectively messed up two franchises. Let’s face it, the Lions won’t recover from this debacle, and the Kings just do not have enough time to build anything half competitive.

    So when all is said and done, we still only have 3 competitive SR teams.

  • Comment 23, posted at 17.01.13 13:11:32 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @Culling Song (Comment 18) :

    Ironically I posted an article today (not here) dealing with much of the issues you mention.

  • Comment 24, posted at 17.01.13 13:13:02 by MornĂ© Reply
  • But Rob, before I forget, very good piece, and I agree 100%

  • Comment 25, posted at 17.01.13 13:23:45 by MornĂ© Reply
  • @MornĂ© (Comment 25) : thanks you sir. Your praise carries much weight indeed

  • Comment 26, posted at 17.01.13 13:36:03 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • I have been visting this site for the last 4 years now and enjoyed the rivalry between the Lions and The Sharks. It brings back memories of the 90’s. I also enjoy Shark supporters objective views on rugby and it is very rarely that you will find an arrogant Sharks supporter. I also decided to support the Sharks this season as they voted for us in the Kings debacle. After reading Robdylan’s comments and the lack of aknowledgement of what is right and wrong, I nearly got a stroke! Yes the Lions were shocking at times and yes we are the worst performing Super franchise, but for FSakes, this borders on lunacy! How can you elimenate a Union that whipped the Sharks in the final and won the CC convincingly for a team that struggles to win the B section!! The Kings should have played CC for a while and tried to push for a semifinal birth. Then we can talk. Rob, please define between fair and what is corrupt. In which this debacle is corrupt. Lions supporters are not pissed off at us not playing Super rugby, but the way it was awarded. đŸ‘¿

  • Comment 27, posted at 17.01.13 13:49:19 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @Rooibonte (Comment 27) : what would have been fair, then?

  • Comment 28, posted at 17.01.13 13:56:05 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @Rooibonte (Comment 27) : and I’m sorry if I caused you a stroke đŸ™‚ I’ve never been anything less than vocal in my support of the Kings, regardless of which way the Sharks administration voted.

    I feel desperately sorry for the Lions players and fans, but if anything is corrupt in this matter, it’s the succession of greedy and inept administrators that you Lions fans have allowed to run your team into the ground over the course of just ten years.

  • Comment 29, posted at 17.01.13 13:57:39 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (Comment 28) : AS I stated, play in SA’s premiere devision and be competative there. I have no problem if the Lions were relegated lets say for the Griekwas. They are at least competative…

  • Comment 30, posted at 17.01.13 13:59:35 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @robdylan (Comment 29) : What would you as Sharks supporters would have done differently? Everybody shouted and screamed when the Springbok was moved to the shoulder, nothing happened. I don’t know why you are such a big fan of the Kings inclusion and then asking for more time to settle?? Should’nt that have happened in the CC?

  • Comment 31, posted at 17.01.13 14:02:48 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @Rooibonte (Comment 30) : Way too logical…..

  • Comment 32, posted at 17.01.13 14:10:12 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
  • @Rooibonte (Comment 27) :

    In a perfect world, yes that is the best way.

    But consider our top CC teams for the last 10 years:

    Blue Bulls

    What is the common denominator there? Apart from Griquas each of those unions holds, or held a Super Rugby franchise license where Griquas as we all know is the only union that has a working relationship with a Super Rugby franchise team (Cheetahs).

    It is not by chance that this is the case, coaches readily admit that they use the CC to build depth and structures for Super Rugby which means Super Rugby funds those Currie Cup teams and structures.

    If you take Super Rugby away from any of those unions, they will end up in the Currie Cup 1st division within two years, it is a bet I am willing to put R1000 on.

    The reverse applies also, for any team to be competitive in the Currie Cup, it is just about impossible to achieve without some connection to Super Rugby resources (read money).

    Nobody will disagree with you that how all this was done is absurd – I think that is the base of Rob’s article in the first place. Neither the Lions or the Kings win through this decision, and so, rugby loses.

    Rob, like myself, believe the Eastern Cape is a region worth investing in though – just the sheer numbers and talent they produce is enough reason – but how this investment is implemented and managed is also very important and what SA Rugby has got wrong since 2005.

    The Kings’ introduction to Super Rugby which guarantees them some financial recourse should never have been, or been at the expense of any other union – only to the benefit of SA Rugby as a collective – and somehow SA Rugby and a lot of fans lost track of that.

  • Comment 33, posted at 17.01.13 14:12:59 by MornĂ© Reply
  • @Rooibonte (Comment 30) :

    I agree, there is way to much of an ‘entitlement’ factor for the Kings. Go out there and win your place in the competition. If you’re good enough then you’ll eventually play top rugby.

    Life in general doesn’t work like that (although in SA you could argue differently)

    In ‘real’ life a team doesn’t just progress from a 3rd grade competition to a 1st grade competition.

  • Comment 34, posted at 17.01.13 14:15:03 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @Pokkel (Comment 34) : but how do you compete against other franchises with players that are simpler far, far better than your own? Especially if all the players who come through your schools leave for those other provinces as soon as they are able to… all because Super Rugby is the drawcard.

  • Comment 35, posted at 17.01.13 14:17:16 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @MornĂ© (Comment 33) :

    I can’t remember but why did a once mighty EP team not progress to be a powerful S15 team. Where did things first go wrong?

  • Comment 36, posted at 17.01.13 14:17:34 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @robdylan (Comment 35) :

    Refer to comment 36…how did a once mighty EP team get into this position in the first place?

  • Comment 37, posted at 17.01.13 14:19:12 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • SARU should have made resources available to the Kings to be competative in CC. Then after they performed and earned their status, play a promotion/relegation game against the Lions. That is all I ask, but to sugar coat the inclusion of the Kings in Superugby is beyond me.

  • Comment 38, posted at 17.01.13 14:20:20 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @MornĂ© (Comment 33) :

    I agree with your last paragraph but 2 wrongs don’t ultimately make a right.

  • Comment 39, posted at 17.01.13 14:20:43 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @Pokkel (Comment 36) :

    When franchises were first formed in SA it was ‘partnerships’ – or in other words, the big 5 (WP, Bulls, Sharks, Cheetahs & Lions) were told to include smaller unions as part of ‘regional franchises’.

    Of course geographically this was an impossible marriage as SWD (George and surrounds) which is almost 5 hours drive from Cape Town was partnered with WP and Boland.

    Border and EP was shacked up with the Sharks.

    Clearly this was never going to work, you cannot merge identities like this into one franchise and expect it to work.

    WP managed to basically buy out Boland (and SWD I believe) (their rights to host games etc) and a similar deal was made with EP and Border with the Sharks.

    SA Rugby in the late 90’s had to either keep the provincial qualifying structure in place (our top 4 Currie Cup teams qualified for Super 12) or set up a proper regional franchise system with the emphasis on ‘region’.

    The big 5 was never going to let go so our franchises basically became extensions of the Big 5.

  • Comment 40, posted at 17.01.13 14:24:08 by MornĂ© Reply
  • @MornĂ© (Comment 40) :

    I remember most of that….maybe I should rephrase. If the EP had all this amazing talent then why weren’t they one of the BIG 5 unions?

  • Comment 41, posted at 17.01.13 14:28:23 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @Rooibonte (Comment 38) :

    Again, I doubt anyone will disagree that SARU stuffed this up big time and have been since 2005. But why is everyone pissed off at the Kings then?

  • Comment 42, posted at 17.01.13 14:29:17 by MornĂ© Reply
  • @MornĂ© (Comment 40) :

    Another question (an honest one because I don’t know the history)

    How did Natal manage to come from the B-section to CC champs in a couple of years? Was it due to certain support from SA rugby or was it due to their own good planning, progress or just plain hard work?

  • Comment 43, posted at 17.01.13 14:31:04 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @Pokkel (Comment 41) :

    Careful with that assumption – remember SWD under Heyneke Meyer smashed the Bulls in a CC semi in the late 90’s if I am not mistaken. These boys did compete well with the big guns, but I suppose not consistently enough if I have to guess.

    Once the big money was taken away from them by the Currie Cup becoming secondary to Super Rugby, it was just a downward spiral from there.

  • Comment 44, posted at 17.01.13 14:33:48 by MornĂ© Reply
  • Now everyone says give the Kings a chance lol.

  • Comment 45, posted at 17.01.13 14:35:09 by Honey Badger Reply

    Honey Badger
  • @Pokkel (Comment 43) : Natal never won promotion to the A division. We were given a leg-up/hand-out just the way the Kings have been here. So let’s not be too scathing in our judgement of them.

  • Comment 46, posted at 17.01.13 14:37:24 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • Oh well, even if most of you disagree, at least I’ve managed to get you all talking rugby for a bit đŸ™‚

  • Comment 47, posted at 17.01.13 14:37:56 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @MornĂ© (Comment 42) : The reason we are anti Kings is because they demande their right to play S15 or else…Knowing that they did not went about it the fair way. Then they lied to the public about the inclusion and now they demand that they should have given the permission to play foreign players! Arrogant don’t you think!

  • Comment 48, posted at 17.01.13 14:38:19 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @Pokkel (Comment 43) :

    Rob will be the best person to answer that. But I remember that B-section teams could play A-section teams and the Sharks reached the Currie Cup final in the 80’s somewhere while still playing in the B-section!

    I know Ian Mac had a lot to do with it, I am not sure if the structures changed which allowed them into the A-section but in the late 80’s they were back after old Ian Mac went on a bit of a recruiting drive.

  • Comment 49, posted at 17.01.13 14:40:05 by MornĂ© Reply
  • @robdylan (Comment 46) : You are absolutely right Rob, but that was in the CC. Do the same for the Kings, but not in Super rugby!!

  • Comment 50, posted at 17.01.13 14:40:34 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @MornĂ© (Comment 44) :

    I have refrained from commenting and even reading any articles related to the Kings issue because frankly I don’t give a shit and I don’t want to waste energy on any issue where sport and politics are intertwined.

    All I do is put myself in a Lions supporters shoes and imagine it happening to my beloved Sharks and I get furious. I hate the whole ‘entitlement’ complex that exists in SA(delete this if you must Rob)

    Honestly would you feel the same way if this happened to WP/Stormers? Would Rob be writing this article if it happened to the Sharks?

    I doubt it.

  • Comment 51, posted at 17.01.13 14:43:29 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @Pokkel (Comment 51) : No the article would not have been written.

  • Comment 52, posted at 17.01.13 14:45:19 by Honey Badger Reply

    Honey Badger
  • @Rooibonte (Comment 50) : Exactly right!

  • Comment 53, posted at 17.01.13 14:45:22 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @robdylan (Comment 47) : That is my point. This is not rugby but politics. We should have debated about how the Lions will ruin the Sharks party again đŸ˜†

  • Comment 54, posted at 17.01.13 14:47:36 by Rooibonte Reply

  • It does make me feel better to know that the majority of the rugby supporters are against the Kings and will not be supporting them in S14.

  • Comment 55, posted at 17.01.13 14:50:37 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @Rooibonte (Comment 55) :

    I haven’t agreed with a Lions supporter this much ever. Maybe I need some professional help? :mrgreen:

  • Comment 56, posted at 17.01.13 14:52:20 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @Rooibonte (Comment 48) :

    Well I fail to see how their demand to play Super Rugby is any different from any other teams demand. There is no qualifying process to qualify for Super Rugby in South Africa so every team is basically ‘demanding’ a right to play there with none really deserving of it through a proper and fair qualifying process.

    If the argument is through performance at lower level competitions like the Currie Cup I think that was explained how no team can be competitive in the Currie Cup without link to Super Rugby. Look at the partial drain the Lions went through and if for some reason they lose the relegation match and is stuck without Super Rugby for another year they will lose everyone else currently on loan or worth mentioning as elite professionals.

    The Kings will include more black players than any other franchise, that is a fact because quite simply, there is a hell of a lot more black player there than anywhere else. That will happen through natural progression and not in a gig where they only get one year where they were told 5 months before the time only that they are in.

    Tony McKeever for years pleaded that the Spears (as they were known then) should play a 3-match promotion relegation match against the lowest ranked SR team – they (other franchises) were not interested.

    So I think your feeling on arrogance is a bit unfair.

  • Comment 57, posted at 17.01.13 14:54:29 by MornĂ© Reply
  • @Pokkel (Comment 56) : đŸ˜† We are not that bad Pokkel..we love you guys Ellis Park we love you even more!

  • Comment 58, posted at 17.01.13 14:56:51 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @Pokkel (Comment 51) :

    Buddy, I have been writing about the Kings since 2007 when WP was shit. Lions, WP, Bulls, Sharks – does not make a difference to me. I have seen merit in rugby in this country investing in the Eastern Cape region for the benefit of SA Rugby (not any province) for 8 years now. That has not changed one bit.

  • Comment 59, posted at 17.01.13 14:59:22 by MornĂ© Reply
  • @Rooibonte (Comment 50) :

    Super Rugby today is what the Currie Cup was in the 80’s.

  • Comment 60, posted at 17.01.13 15:00:36 by MornĂ© Reply
  • this article has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Those of you who are determined to introduce a political slant to what I have written will very quickly find my patience exhausted.

    Time for a wake-up call, friends. The Kings ARE in Super Rugby and we ARE going to write about them on this site, just like we do any other team playing Super Rugby.

    Please don’t think that the site rules are going to be relaxed in any way just because you think the Kings are a political tool rather than a rugby team.

  • Comment 61, posted at 17.01.13 15:02:21 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @MornĂ© (Comment 59) :

    There may be merit but the way it was done is diabolical and I think that is what Rooibonte is saying. They should have let the Kings/Spears play in the CC since 2007 so they can develop but they are on a hiding to nothing.

    The way it’s being done is not uplifting the Kings but rather destroying both the Lions and the Kings. It’s a lose/lose situation the way SARU is handling this.

  • Comment 62, posted at 17.01.13 15:05:16 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @MornĂ© (Comment 57) : No Morne you have it all wrong.

    By playing Premiere devision CC rugby, you will get the exposure needed to gain financially. Look at the Griekwas, they have managed to lure players and very good players. They are competative in CC and even have players in the Cheetahs group.
    Griekwas have beaten the Lions twice last year and I think they beat you guys as well.
    With the level of competativeness they produce, nobody can argue the inclusion in the CC permiere devision. If players knew that EP are playing CC, the local talent will stay and the exsposure will be great. Then SARU can add to that by confirming a pro/rele game.
    Please tell me Morne that you are just yanking my chain, because you seem like a decent bloke!

  • Comment 63, posted at 17.01.13 15:05:54 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @Pokkel (Comment 62) :

    In any case I shouldn’t even have this conversation. I should just be happy about the easy 5 pointers the Sharks will earn. đŸ˜€

  • Comment 64, posted at 17.01.13 15:07:06 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @robdylan (Comment 61) : Rob, again, the Kings are a political motivated rugby team..

  • Comment 65, posted at 17.01.13 15:08:25 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @Pokkel (Comment 64) : I will be supporting the Sharks. Hopefully they can start with a bang. My worry is that if that happens, the Sharks’s wheels come off half way. If the Sharks can maintain the pace, I have no doubt that you will be crowned S14 champs 2013..Good luck. 10 points against the Kings and 10 points for the bye…20 points wow!!!

  • Comment 66, posted at 17.01.13 15:12:04 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @robdylan (Comment 61) :

    Fair enough…just one last question. Honestly, if the Sharks were being treated the way the Lions have, would you still have been writing this article?

  • Comment 67, posted at 17.01.13 15:12:29 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @Rooibonte (Comment 66) :

    Good stuff! Let’s hope they don’t disappoint!

  • Comment 68, posted at 17.01.13 15:14:04 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @Rooibonte (Comment 63) :

    I explained the Griquas situation above in a previous post. They benefit directly from Super Rugby as the only union in a partnership of any value (player resources specifically) with the Cheetahs who are in Super Rugby.

    Players move to Griquas because they know they have a decent shot of playing Super Rugby. Not because they like Kimberley.

    I spoke to a member of the coaching staff from Griquas last year, he confirmed that the Cheetahs subsidies player salaries for Griquas through Cheetahs PTY who is the commercial arm of the Super Rugby franchise.

    And for the record, when you mention ‘you guys’ I suppose you are referring to the Kwas beating the Sharks? Not a Shark supporter bud – not by a long shot đŸ˜‰

  • Comment 69, posted at 17.01.13 15:15:53 by MornĂ© Reply
  • Something to lighten the mood!

    Lady: Do you drink?

    Man: Yes.

    Lady: How much a day?

    Man: Three 6 packs.

    Lady: How much per 6 pack?

    Man: About $10.00.

    Lady: And how long have you been drinking?

    Man: 15 years.

    Lady: So one 6 pack costs $10.00, and you have 3 packs a day which puts your spending each month at $900. In one year, it would be $10,800. Correct?

    Man: Correct.

    Lady: If in 1 year you spend $10,800, not accounting for inflation, the past 15 years puts your spending at $162,000. Correct?

    Man: Correct.

    Lady: Do you know that if you hadn’t drank, that money could have been put in a step-up interest savings account and, after accounting for compound interest for the past 15 years, you could have now bought a Ferrari?

    Man: Do you drink?

    Lady: No.

    Man: So where’s your @%*&^% Ferrari then?

  • Comment 70, posted at 17.01.13 15:19:16 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @Pokkel (Comment 67) : You know what they say mate “as is gebrande hout”…. Of course I’d be taking a very different tone if the Sharks had been relegated, but I guarantee you one thing – I would be directing a lot more of my scorn towards the Sharks management, in that case, than I would towards the Kings and SARU.

    The Lions had it all on a plate and they f*cked every last bit of it up.

  • Comment 71, posted at 17.01.13 15:23:33 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (Comment 71) :

    You obviously didn’t spend ENOUGH time in Gauteng this holiday…..
    it’s more like ‘as is verbrande hout’ đŸ˜‰ đŸ˜†
    but not a bad attempt for a Pommie! :mrgreen:

  • Comment 72, posted at 17.01.13 15:26:28 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @MornĂ© (Comment 60) :

    The point is that they are jumping 2 tiers instead of progressing 1 tier at a time.

    OK I’m through wasting my time and energy on the Kings issue.

  • Comment 73, posted at 17.01.13 15:34:40 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @Pokkel (Comment 72) : oops. đŸ™‚

  • Comment 74, posted at 17.01.13 15:36:58 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @Pokkel (Comment 70) : đŸ˜† Excellent!!

  • Comment 75, posted at 17.01.13 15:37:39 by Rooibonte Reply

  • Cheers guys and good luck

  • Comment 76, posted at 17.01.13 15:39:45 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @robdylan (Comment 74) :

    I forgot to ask, who won the Oakleys last year?

  • Comment 77, posted at 17.01.13 15:49:44 by MornĂ© Reply
  • @MornĂ© (Comment 77) : can’t remember boss…. not someone who posts here often.

  • Comment 78, posted at 17.01.13 16:18:35 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (Comment 10) : Sorry long day, not running from the argument you require. First of let it be clear I neither have any dislike for The Kings or for the Watsons, I have a problem with people being given what the do not deserve. I believe they shouldn’t be in at all due to the fact that they have to even been able to gain promotion into the currie cup premier division, and before you make the argument that the currie cup and super rugby teams are different, that’s exactly the same for ever south african franchise. I believe the should have earn promotion and then come in the top 5 to even be considered. Is like you say they are capable of competing then why do they need time? As this would mean they are better then the worst team aka the Lions. And I’m sorry but say what ever you like there is not an argument on earth to justify a person being awarded something with out earning it!!

  • Comment 79, posted at 18.01.13 00:11:46 by Seth101 Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • I’m not one of the big guns on the site, so my comments unfortunately doesn’t carry as much weight as Morne’s comments. And after the warning issued by Rob about giving any discussion a political slant, my comment will have to be shorter: the Kings inclusion was a political decision, not a rugby decision.

    So many on this site bemoan the right the Aussies have to include additional teams like the Force and the Rebels, but insist on the inclusion of the Kings. Why, if the pure reason the Rebels and Force were admitted to S15 (take note Rooibonte, its not the S14) are for the development of the game of rugby in those regions. You can’t wax your board on the one halve that the Kings MUST be there for development blah blah, but unwax the other part by saying that the Rebels/Australia has no right to field a 5th franchise. The Lions and the Cheetahs both struggle each year and still we “demand” to have 5 teams in this competition! Damn, some even suggested that we should be given a leg-up and include 6 teams in this competition!!

    Well I said more than I’m worth in weight. I’m just a plain Sharks supporter

  • Comment 80, posted at 19.01.13 07:09:21 by JustPlainSHARK Reply

  • @JustPlainSHARK (Comment 80) : The reason I call it the S14 is becuase there is nothing super about the Kings. Only from next year it will be the S15 again!

  • Comment 81, posted at 19.01.13 12:33:51 by Rooibonte Reply

  • @robdylan (Comment 61) : To suggest that the inclusion of the Kings in super rugby is anything other than a political decision is nonsense. It is akin to arguing that Luke Watson’s selection for the Boks when he was capped was on rugby merit.
    I suspect that Watson’s motivation, along with their most vocal supporter Mark Keohane, has more to do with personal commercial advantage than any heartfelt desire to develop rugby in the region. Keo has been beating the Kings drum since this farcical example of Sarfu ineptitude began, notably announcing as fact (along with this website) the imminent insolvency of the Lions based on information leaked to that other well-known rugby publication City Press by Guma, the Lion’s former equity partners. Keo went further in unashamedly plugging Luke Watson as a prospective Bok captain successor to john Smit.
    For the record I am a Sharks supporter. I was born in and went to school in Natal. I also played most of my rugby in Natal except for a few years while doing national service. I was at Kings Park most Saturdays when not playing, as a schoolboy in the 70’s and throughout the ‘80’s when we could not extract ourselves from the B section.
    I also acknowledge, for reasons that are not relevant to this post, that I have a soft spot for the Lions. I agree that they need to look no further than their own inept administration under Manie Reynecke for their rapid demise from the 90’s when they supplied the core of Kitch Christie’s WC winning team in 95. What is tragic though, is that I believe that they have had the rug pulled out from under them just as they were making real progress under Kevin de Klerk in getting the union back on track.
    The one thing that I do agree with you on is that the decision made will potentially ruin both unions. In an ideal world the only equitable system, in my opinion, would be one where all the provinces play annually in the Currie Cup for franchise hosting rights. The five top provinces then assemble 30 man squads. A province has first call on any player contracted to them but if they are surplus to their squad they are available to any other franchise thus ensuring that the country’s top 150 elite players are all playing. Idealistic and probably unworkable I know!
    Finally, I am not sure if the argument for the Kings inclusion is premised primarily on EP’s supposed history of producing great players who then move on to ply their trade elsewhere, or on the apparent untapped potential of the region given its relatively high numbers of young black men playing the game.
    I have seen some comments here to suggest that some believe the former to be true. I do not have the stats at my disposal so am happy to be enlightened, and while there is no doubt that EP has produced some excellent players, Danie Gerber being the obvious one, I applied the only quick objective test that I could think of and cast my eye down the last Springbok team selected for the end of year test at Twickenham. Of the match day 23 the broader Eastern Cape region had two representatives who were schooled in the area in Mvovo (Border) and Kirchner (SWD)
    Unsurprisingly, WP contributed 7 of the 23, followed by the OFS and Lions with 4 each and KZN with 3. The Puma’s also contributed 2 players and Boland 1. Interestingly, there were none from the Bulls!
    As usual on the EOYT there were a number of players missing who would probably have forced themselves into staring positions. The ones that I can think of offhand are Bismark and Frans Steyn (OFS), Beast (Zim), Schalk Burger and Andries Bekker (WP), Habana and Jacque Fourie (Lions), and Fourie du Preez (Bulls).

  • Comment 82, posted at 21.01.13 12:59:30 by steve Reply


Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.