It seems WP rugby is being allowed and protected to cheat within the system, the same is not being afforded to the other unions, or are they ?
One wonders how the systems of our rugby can be so manipulated?
A few years ago while Rassie Erasmus was coaching the Cheetahs a huge problem arose when between the Cheetahs and the Northern Free State a player loan and play arrangement was made, players such as Hennie Danniler whilst out of form went to play for the NFS team and vice versa.
Thus playing for 2 different unions at the same time in the same year, this brought about anger from unions like WP and SWD that laid a complaint to the SA rugby board.
Now a few years later we find WP rugby doing the same with Rassie Erasmus at the helm doing the same thing but even taking it a step further, we have seen the whole season how WP players have been playing for Boland.
It is now reported that Boland rugby is buying overseas players, but who will be available to play for WP?How can one still call Boland a rugby union on its own?
We all know that Boland rugby union was bankrupt just a year ago, and that even recently had a problem with paying salaries.
Now they are offering big bonuses etc? And buying overseas stars?I have no doubt this is going to cause waves within SA rugby, but I say fight fire with fire.
It is a Professional era and maybe time the other big unions followed suite, I mean surely if WP is allowed to enlarge their player pool through another union and play them as they want, then surely other unions should be allowed to do the same.
It is not only allowing for a much larger player pool, but it is allowing the excess players to play rugby for another union to stay match fit, so when for example a playing is injured at WP then they draw on their reserves playing for Boland.
This begs the question why the Sharks and Bulls unions are not following suite?Is it not time the Sharks brought out Northern Natal rugby and made a 2nd Sharks team?Should the Bulls not buy out the Falcons and make a 2nd Bulls team?
Surely if the Sharks for example bought more big name players and revived the old NNatal rugby union, along with their present fringe players, they could make a very strong 2nd team, and whenever the Sharks have a lot of Springboks or injuries just pull from their 2nd team.
I mean this 2nd team would be Match fit not so?
I personally think it’s wrong and should be stopped, if Boland wants to be a rugby union it should be standing on its own 2 feet and have its own sponsors, just as the other small unions are doing.
If not its time the other big unions made use of this loop hole provided by Sarfu, we all know the Bulls and Sharks have enough money and sponsors to do exactly what WP rugby is doing.
Being professional or not, there should be some kind of fairness. To me it seems wrong that Boland use loan players to stay in CC division.
Well, the Denniler case set a precedent and that ‘loophole’ is now open for all to exploit. So nothing unfair there…
However, whether it set a good precedent or not is open for debate. I don’t think it did and I would reckon you don’t believe its a good one either Sharkey?
As for getting smaller unions on their feet: Morne’s theory of the franchises taking care of their affilliated unuions should be the way to go.
Then their would be no need Natal as a B-team. BTW, which smaller unions are affiliated to the Sharks currently?
Two things, SARU has regulations in place for players moving from one union to the other.
So far, none of these rules were broken.
Secondly, the imports for Boland will be able to play for the Stormers, not WP.
Boland is a member union of the Stormers franchise.
I see on Suparugby that the Boland biter is not cited. He is named however.
Do not get confuse by the relationship within a franchise and where teams are competing for a position in the premier division of the CC. The biting champions which is the weaker team, by using loan players from WP may stay in the CC. Then WP recalls their players and the standard of the CC suffers.
Clearly the rules are wrong.
How come Lobberts has played for both WP and Boland this season if the regulations do not allow it?
Morne,
If I understand you correctly someone like Robberts can move from WP to Boland but not back again to WP later in a Currie Cup season?
If that is so, were the rules changes after the Denniler incident to prevent that from happening again?
And then, what is your posistion on the merits/demerits of the current situation?
Well I see a massive conflict of interest in the WP Boland case. Will the directors now feel obligated to lose further and not try so hard to beat WP because they are getting players from them? If WP needed a point differential of 50 odd to end first in the premier league and their last match happen to be boland? Boland will not put all their effort in to beat province and will bend over to let their business partners end first.
#2 fander
mate i feel its wrong as there wikll always be questions asked
the sharks are not affiliated with any other union
infact the sharks have loaned ep rugby 7 players whom they have no recourse with for a year
yes ep rugby is giving them game time
but for example if warren whitely a very good under 21 8thman got injured the sharks would not beable to call him up now
next season yes
what i am saying is that if this continues then surely bulls sharks lions etc should follow suite
Fender,
The agreement is essentially between the two unions.
SARU’s comes in when movement between unions are seen as an unfair advantage to the team (either loaning the player or the one receiving the loaned player).
Lobberts’ movement to Boland did not negatively or positively impact on WP rugby, so no issue there.
His move strengthened Boland, but no more than getting a player through any other means other than a loan agreement.
Lobberts would not have been allowed to play in the finals (semi’s or finals) or promotion/relegation if he had not played at least 3 league games for Boland (unless there is some special circumstance surrounding it).
WP had Lobberts on their books, they did not need him. Boland needed a player so WP went into an agreement with Boland to ‘loan’ the player (as far as I know there is a limited time to contract players so they could not just contract him permanently).
This loan agreement will include financial implications too of course, where Boland will pay the player an agreed amount for the time they use him, just like they play any other player.
If WP however incurred a massive loosie and lock injury case, they could have recalled Lobberts but then again, if Lobberts did not play at least 3 league games for WP he would not have been allowed to play in the semi’s or finals.
Also, Rassie is DOR of rugby.
This place him as the head of the Stormers franchise. Very important to note this.
The Stormers are made up of Boland and WP Rugby unions.
Rassie through this awards his STORMERS players game time where they would otherwise sit on the bench.
It is beneficial to the Stormers cause.
WP however gains nothing from this where I sit.
goeiemore gbs broer
morning ashweepee
morning princess long time no chat
gm morne
#2 fender not fander but hat nearly the same lol
#11 ??????? *&%(&*$($#%^*#%^(
#sharky
No problems ’bout the Fander mate – I’m having a shocker of a cyber morning as it is! 😉
lol good morning tripplets hehehe
Thanks Morne,
That’s cleared it up.
actually the more i look at it the more it makes sense for the sharks to revive the old northern natal rugby union
so many up and coming players could be kept at the sharks and used there
the acadamy produces X but they lose many of those players when they cant give them all game time
thus the loaning of players to ep and falcons in the past
I read on News 24 this morning that Boland might be bringing in 2 overseas players cant remember their names but one of them is that party animal guy that was maybe going to go to Wp and the other was a name i didnt know.
My first thought was how could they afford it and then this is bullsh*t now Wp can choose from 2 clubs. This is not fair play. Sharks dont have 2 clubs to choose from and i dont know about the other clubs.
ONERB NO 8 – that is a excellent point.
# 17
The Sharks bought EP’s stake out from their Super rugby agreement.
They made their own bed.
Sharks ‘loaned’ players to EP rugby this year too…
Both unions ensured their fringe players got game time.
Where is the difference?
#8
Just like Griqaus will fall over if the same applied when they play their employer in Super rugby the Cheetahs?
Not going to happen.
Are you guys pissed off because WP has been doing this, or that they are the first to do this?
no 19 – but do we get to play EP in the Curry Cup ?
no 21 – Maybe because they are the firstn lol.
21
think its the latter, hehehe
o morning everyone
except bulls supporters and sharky_forever!!
#22
Does it matter?
Griquas play Cheetahs in the CC.
Bulls play Leopards in the CC.
Nothing that has happened here is illegal.
So again I ask, are you okes just pissed WP did this before any other team thought about it?
#23
🙂
Hi Ashley, how is the weather in Cape Town reason i ask my dad was moveing house this weekend and i heard it was rather windy.
Why you unhappy with Sharky he is a sweetie ?
i’m not in cape town, to be exact
weather was a bit windy yesterday in paarl though
o, and tell your dad to leave the house, its easier to just move the furniture, hehehe
Morne you also missing the smileys, a person can sound quite abrubt without them.
Users Online
Total 177 users including 0 member, 177 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,839,890 Page Impressions
_