SA Rugby and the realization of poverty

It is obvious that SARU has finally been forced to introduce changes to move away from the smaller Unions with an amateur background running and ruining SARU financially.  The said Unions are driven by two forces - greed and political shenanigans.
The second issue that SARU was forced to address is the purely financial situation.   The idea is to get the private sector to buy the ownership of the Super Rugby franchises,   It already  started in the WP - where Remgro (Johan Rupert) already has a stake of 49% and is reportedly lending the Union money to pay their most pressing creditors,  
Rupert is a big sponsor of sporting events - he is the chief funder of the European Golf Circuit and in horse racing he is funding the Queens Plate Racing day - his wife being a major race horse breeder.   He is interested in rugby as well - but that is where the problem starts.   Rupert is a shrewd international businessman and would not put up with political interference and rubbish from Government.   So that is one thing that he would require to fall by the wayside.   He is interested in sport development and has donated millions to enhance various sporting codes in SA and will no doubt put money in to develop sport   So what is he going to require from the Stormers/WP.
So that is applicable to the Stormers - but what about the other four franchises - I leave out the Kings (nobody would be interested in that one).   Wiese may be interested and so would Jooste - but they are both resident in the WP.   Emirates is a major sponsor of the Lions and they could be the one company to buy out the Lions franchise,   That leave the three other franchises - the Bulls, the Sharks and the  Cheetahs.
It will be very interesting to see whether Supersport will not buy out one of the Unions sine Naspers has enough money to make an investment in rugby similar to Supersport United in soccer.  
What is clear is that the private sector will not invest their money in politically selected teams and will want their pound of flesh in respect of performance from teams they "own".     That is going to make it very hard to select players based on anything but merit - since the public in general will not support losers and the big business interests - although mostly international - will not back losers.   
                 
 

 There's no sense in buying a commodity that is waning..... have a look at the bums on seats.

 Denny
Interesting enough Naspers has major interests in Russia and China and they are likely to expand those in both - gaining from T rump's reported positive relationship with Russia and the US Media hostility,  as well as his approach to China - which would leave excellent investment opportunities for non-American companies,  
Naspers also operate extensively in Africa and Scandinavia - to think that they started with De Burger and Huisgenoot as their only real asset and is now worth billions.     

 So many points...

Poverty is indeed the expected future of SA as a consequence of the excellent men's ways, ruining an environment the faster, the bigger, the harder possible is the surest path toward permanent poverty.



In this context, SA faces the situation of deciding over the future of rugby, its continuation.

Professional rugby is a drain on resources and makes people poorer. Rugby is in a big demand to justify its own existence and practice.

That point was well understood and other countries took various actions in order to make the termination of an activity like rugby the hardest possible.

One action was to make rugby popular: the more people against termination of rugby, the harder it is to terminate it. Rugbys got into an inclusive approach for this cause.

In SA, rugby has always been political and as the result of political interference, rugby has not been made popular in SA.

A country more and more tipping toward permanent poverty, an activity that is not popular ... Whoever is going to take rein will do as the others: they will try to make rugby popular to postpone as much as possible the termination of rugby.

The situation is so bad in SA that the government is forced in measures to pretend pro rugby has popular support.

"....he is the chief funder of the European Golf Circuit" 
Really? Do the "European Golf Circuit", or Johann Rupert for that matter, know that? And has anybody told BMW, Rolex, Titleist, et al, that they have been bumped further down the line?

 on backing losers: it is all about guaranteeing support to losers. Excellent men want to stay in activity.

The US basketball team is often quoted as an example of what the ABs can not afford: winning all the time with no fear of the consequences of hurting their partners.

Even in the case of the US, the way they play are influenced by their partners' needs.

The US sent to the Olympics a B or even C team.

Excellent men are greedy of storytelling, of tales.

During the tournament, the storytelling was that US team could be beaten. The media were hotly pushing for it. Every match, the US are going to be beaten, they were not to win the tournament.
The scores seemed to support the thesis as the US team did not win overwhelmingly.
The final match came: a landslide for the US team.

What happened is simple: the US team played to satisfy the audience. Before the final match, they played to satisfy the audience of loser teams, the goal was to win without crushing the opponent, to let people think that their loser team could win.
The US audience was only interested in the final match: the US team played for the US audience.

The US are not in a position of losing, they can afford winning everything. Even in that situation, they must keep the dream alive for the supporters of loser teams.

Excellent men have a deep thirst for delusion

Delusion: a US C team can be beaten. All it takes is that supporters support their team.

Reality: a US C team is still dominant. No support can change that point.

The US C team sold the delusion during the tournament as it is the one good for business. Crushing teams from the start would have meant less and less audience. And a C team crushing A teams would have endangered the practise of basketball in loser nations.


In rugby, it is the same. People who do not want to back losers have only one option: backing the ABs.

This is not sustainable, as all the other teams, the ones playing loser rugby, will be deprived of any support.

No more teams but the ABs, rugby is ended. This is what the excellent men want to avoid.

So it is all about finding causes to support losers.

Other nations have worked in that direction. SA, due to past political interference that is not cancelled by the current political interference, is another situation.

What is used elsewhere to support a loser team is absent in SA.
You will have a hard time to find one cause to justify the continuation of rugby in SA while the causes to terminate it are stacking up.

 This is the worst thing that could happen to SA rugby by allowing private companies to own a majority stake. It completely go against what Rugby union is all about. The whole beauty of Union is the fact that the national team comes first. Look what is going on in France. It is the most lucrative league but the French side has struggled for years. Considering that the French use to be one of the traditional northern hemisphere threats. 
I think having 5 professional unions is more than enough with no more than a 180 full time professional players. 
The rest of the unions should go onto play as you earn or give the players a share of the gate fees. Your team plays poor and you lose your fan base, you lose your pay

Link
WPRU OWNS 75.1%, the rest is ownd by a Rupert proxcy, not Remgro. Get the facts straight.

 Draad
Thanks for the correction and what  I wrote about was that Wakefield was saying recently that they are negotiating with Remgro about taking a 49% share and I thought that it was already finalized.
No doubt Rupert probably had a separate company registered to deal with the Rugby issue.   So the proxy you refer to is probably just another Remgro  subsidiary.   However - we all know that if the 74% stake is taken over where the money will come from - Johan  Rupert.  

 "Draad
Thanks for the correction................"
That is that one sorted. Now what about Rupert the "...... chief funder of the European Golf Circuit..."?    

 Can you read dunce????????

 Yep. I have seen that you have been BS'ing about Rupert being the "chief funder"" of the "European Golf circuit" and you do not have the balls to admit it.

 Still the same BS,   That c omes from a man who is sidelining the real issue raised and ignore facts as well.   The man has a mania to try and find something in which he thinks he can get an advantage in anything I write and then make that the main issue,   He is a dunce and even worse - a dofdoos.
He never really starts any rugby-related thread - he is too stupid for that and then get wired up on side-issues on any thread somebody else started, normally on something not related to the real issue and then goes bananas.   I think he "ass fly" description of his attitude is clear - he thrives on BS and can be found out easily.
     

 So it is confirmed then. You have woefully flunked the Johann Rupert issue. Is that why you have tried it on a totally unrelated thread? Not that I really expect and answer on the last question either.
Check this out. You should seriously consider entering. You just might walk away with one of the prizes. 

Where did WP Rugby come from into this thread? Unless they actually own 70% of the Boks already ?