I think Dally has a point somewhere, he's just awful at putting it across and I have no idea what it is.

Get back to school mate, start reading what people have actually posted and look up the meaning of words that you don't understand. At the moment you come across like a 13 year old kid who's got no experience of debate and struggles making sense of other peoples opinions if they don't agree with yours.

He fails to do this with unalarming regularity. It's his forte.

how can you tell the difference between how a 13 year old kid comes across compared to a 15 year old?

i dont spend a lot of times with kids so i cant tell.

The NRL would not drop everything. FWIW, I think they should - South Africa could potentially offer a arge new broadcast revenue stream as the Warriors/Sky TV NZ did for the NRL - however, South Africa is a market more than twice as large as Australia, and their huge TV market for the Springboks and Tri Nations (and to a lesser extent the Super 14) is the main driver for the large value of the SANZAR TV deals for Australian and NZ Rugby Union. Comparing RSA to France is not exactly valid because each has different social dynamics, a different history. Stade Francais is probably not a realistic proposition for a Super League franchise, however the Eastern Cape's Southern Kings (or Southern Spears), as I discussed here for an NRL or Super League franchise

Also, Cape Town could also support a RL franchise at the new Green Point Stadium. The city already is host to Rugby Union teams at Newlands Stadium, Super 14 franchise the Stormers, the best supported team in either code of Rugby in the world, with an average attendance of over 42,000 per match, and Currie Cup team Western Province. Western Province will be very reluctant to move they, the Stormers, or any Springbok games to Green
Point, as they own the Newlands Stadium, and it is their traditional ground.

I gathered that. And since I haven't said anything to contradict something else I've said in that post, or had two separate opinions on the same thing, I fail to see where I am being hypercritical, which is why I am questioning whether you actually know what the word means!

Just because there are big union clubs doesn't make it any easier for rugby league to take off. I don't see how you have come to that conclusion? South Africa is a big market, but so is America. What's the difference?

Expansion plans should not be dropped for the sake of some rich backer in a random place saying they want a franchise. To me, it's pretty insulting that people think it is that easy to run a professional rugby league club that all they need is a wad of cash. There's more to professional sport than money.

nah i didnt say you are being hypocritical, just that your post was hypercritical.

i like to be positive myself.

.....that said, it does help to have a backer with deep pockets. Catalans & Quins are 2 "new" clubs that are propped up by backers......and Ian Lenegan isn't exactly on the breadline at Wigan either.
I reckon that between 10k and 12k average gates are needed to be self sufficient and there aren't that many clubs in SL running on that average at present.........so the money men with the dedication to keep on spending are vital to RL in the UK.....AT THE MOMENT!

Most definitely helps, you're right. But pockets are only so deep, and backers will not necessarily want a return, but want the club to be self-sufficient in the end. Catalans look likely they could achieve this one day. Quins don't. Catalans aren't exactly a new area either, there's been RL there for decades which is why they've found it easier to get interest unlike Quins and Crusaders.

You plonk a side in SA, a place where there's no interest in RL at this time, and you'll be throwing your money down the drain.

How can my post be hypercritical but not me? I'm the one that said it! FFS dally, you're really not helping yourself as usual! Which part of my post was hypercritical? I really don't think you have a clue what the word means. What does being positive have to do with being hypercritical or not?!

Hypo isnt the same as Hyper.

Though im sure hyper critical is two words

Yes, Just because Western Province (WP) and the Stormers franchise (of which WP owns part) Rugby are strong, it does not mean that Rugby League would necessarily take off in South Africa. However, given the large base of Rugby players in the Cape, a large percentage of whom do not get many opportunities to progress, Rugby League [icould[/i possibly get a good opportunity, if people are genuinely committed to forging links with the different local communities, and being inclusive to all social groups, developing the game. Genuine commitment and ties to a region are needed for any expansion attempt to be successful anywhere.

You asked how South Africa (or France) is different to America. I'd say the more relevant question is

Consider these reply posts by on that thread by by bladder - a South African from Cape Town (his references to local areas there are quite specific)
rlBladder reply 2rl

Now, I argued in the post on League Unlimited rlShould South Africa's Southern Kings be offered an NRL/ESL franchise?rl that going for Leighton Samuel's Rugby Union team and money has eventually provided Wales RL with a professional team that is competing reasonably well and attracting. If RFL not taken the opportunity, it would be unlikely that Wales RL would be near the state that it is now.

You are indeed correct. My mistake. I just assumed he was doing his usual inconsistent spelling that I hadn't even noticed.
Spelling error from myself there, which I'll admit. From the context I was using the term in, it was clear I meant "hyp[io[/icrit" though.
But "hypercritical" is still one word.

Still, what does being positive have to do with being hyp[ier[/icritical?

hypercritical means being too critical.

me im positive.

unless you confused it with hypocritical, but you are too smart to do that.

There are a lot of rugby players in the south of England as well, but they're not all lining up to play for the Quins. But there is a scope (just like anywhere really). There needs to be A LOT of work done before just plonking an NRL or SL team in there, otherwise there will be next to no interest and it won't last long..


I never compared France to anyone. I compared SA and USA. If you compare pretty much any country, they are always going to have different histories and conditions, etc. We aren't looking for exact replicas here, just the similarities (otherwise you couldn't compare anything). The similarities are that both countries have a dominant handling code of football that aren't rugby league, but these codes have transferable skills. That's why I question why SA would be anymore successful than USA.


SL got incredibily lucky that someone was willing to take over Crusaders. The jury is still out on whether they are successful or not (their crowds and performances are slipping) but they are a darn sight better than Bridgend. It is not a model that is worth copying. Bridgend could have gone bust mid-season the way that place was run, and there is no guarantee that someone will take over. If they do perish, that is a lot of TV money that could have been spent on establishing league somewhere else. It isn't just the rich backers money we're using.


If they want to, that is their decision.. I wouldn't object to it. What I would object to is dropping everything just to let them in because they're from Paris.