Can we replace Super Rugby?
-
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kirwan Only if players from an area can't play for franchises based in other areas. As long as talent from the Auckland area gets the opportunity to play SR (for one of the 5 franchises), there's no need for two franchises in the Auckland area. I doubt two franchises in Auckland would both be able to attract sufficient crowds to fill big stadiums.
They would if they tap into the tribalism that Sir John is talking about.
Two sides, Harbour and Auckland would go great.
And so generous of you to send the Auckland region players around the country to prop up their miserable depth.
-
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@tim Maybe, but Nelson and Pukekohe arent'.
Population of Counties Manukau is over 500,000. Dunedin is 120,000.
-
-
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kirwan Well, they also sign players from outside Auckland, so why not?
In one post you complain about your province potentially losing local players, but you are happy for the same to happen to Auckland.
If I was uncharitable I’d call that hypocritical.
-
You can't convince me. Population size isn't everything. If they'd pull the Highlanders in favour of another franchise in the Auckland area, that would kill off rugby in the south of the South Island. All local rugby talent would move north. You can see what's happening in Southland. That would also happent in Otago. I don't see any justification for that.
-
@crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
SJK is correct in one thing. The provincialism aspect is a huge thing to draw on. This thread already shows that. First time in ages we have had partisan debate on rugby (instead of religion, politics etc) and the replies are coming thick and fast.
Always cared more about Auckland rugby than the Blues. Same with posters like TR and Hooroo for their teams.
Byproduct of the manufactured nature of SR teams and the draft designed to weaken Aucklands dominance.
-
@duluth The obvious adjustment to make is to remove the Highlanders and have two Auckland based teams: Counties-Manukau/Auckland, and North Harbour/Northland. About 1,800,000 people in the Auckland and Northland regions, with Auckland growing at 45,000 per year.
-
@kirwan said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kirwan Well, they also sign players from outside Auckland, so why not?
In one post you complain about your province potentially losing local players, but you are happy for the same to happen to Auckland.
If I was uncharitable I’d call that hypocritical.
You're confusing Super Rugby and NPC.
-
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kirwan said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kirwan Well, they also sign players from outside Auckland, so why not?
In one post you complain about your province potentially losing local players, but you are happy for the same to happen to Auckland.
If I was uncharitable I’d call that hypocritical.
You're confusing Super Rugby and NPC.
It’s the main topic of this thread genius.
-
@kirwan said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
SJK is correct in one thing. The provincialism aspect is a huge thing to draw on. This thread already shows that. First time in ages we have had partisan debate on rugby (instead of religion, politics etc) and the replies are coming thick and fast.
Always cared more about Auckland rugby than the Blues. Same with posters like TR and Hooroo for their teams.
Byproduct of the manufactured nature of SR teams and the draft designed to weaken Aucklands dominance.
Same with me. Counties is my Team. Chiefs are a pro rugby set up that I follow.