• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Melbourne Super Bid favoured by TV

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Spook

Guest
http://www.super14.com/news/viewarticle.asp?id=22613

Melbourne's chances of beating South Africa's Southern Kings for the new Super Rugby team when the Super 15 launches in 2011 look set to rise dramatically after there have been persistent rumours that broadcasters would prefer the new team to be in Victoria.

On the face of things it's hardly surprising that an Australian company like Newscorp would back an Australian bid over a South African one so the rumours make sense.

Broadcasters are said to be so keen to tap into the lucrative Victorian sporting marketplace they have indicated they are prepared to pay substantially more for the broadcast rights if SANZAR votes next week to award the new Super Rugby expansion franchise to Melbourne.

This means that although South Africa might not get the new Super 15 team they could still benefit from the situation.

The partners of SANZAR split whatever money comes in from the broadcasters three ways so if broacdcasters pay extra for a team in Melbourne then all three partners (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) would benefit.

"All would get a bigger slice of a larger pie," a reliable source told The Australian yesterday.

New Zealand have what could be looked at as a swing vote and one harldy expects them to vote for less money and potentially more travel if they go the South African route.

Current SANZAR rules however state that there has to be a unanimous vote so either South Africa or Australia will have to vote against their own team gettting the franchise.

Common sense says that SANZAR should agree on a majority vote but South Africa refused that option on Wednesday.

If SANZAR's broadcaster, News Corporation, does value the Melbourne market more than the South African market then that could be the final trump for Australia's candidate city in what is shaping as a far tighter contest with the Southern Kings than most observers had anticipated.

Unless there is a unanimous vote, which hardly seems likely with South Africa every bit as determined in its support of the Port Elizabeth-based Kings as is Australia behind the Melbourne Rebels, the matter will have to go to arbitration.

South Africa are clearly expecting New Zealand and Australia to vote for Melbourne so while they have refused the unanimous vote option they appear to be willing to accept the appointment of a Sydney QC (Quade Cooper) to hear the matter while all parties are in town.

It had seemed an open-and-shut case that the ARU would win a fifth licence when it was announced that the new Super 15 team would be required to play in the Australian conference during the home-and-away derby stage of the tournament.

But South African sources have revealed the SARU will counter that advantage by proposing that instead of the three competing countries breaking off into their own individual conferences, the derby matches be worked into the wider draw.

That would mean that the Waratahs, Brumbies, Reds and Western Force all would play the Kings in Port Elizabeth as part of their annual tours to South Africa, while the Kings, in turn, would play all four provinces as part of their annual sweep through Australia and New Zealand.

"The impact of the logistics would be fairly trivial," the South African contact said.

"It would mean the Kings play six matches in Australia and New Zealand, not five, while the Australian provinces would play three matches annually in South Africa, in place of the current arrangement where they play three one year and only two the next."

Details of the Australian bid remain a mystery but South Africa have submitted a 60-page document to SANZAR in support of the Southern Kings.

The South African government are backing the Kings bid because amongst other reasons they have built a new stadium in Port Elizabeth that will almost certainly be a white elephant after the world cup if the Kings are not included in the Super 15.

There is still much speculation over the details of the Melbourne team and management but South Africa have already announced that the Kings Super 15 coach will be former Stormers coach and assistant Springboks coach Alan Solomon.

Solomon will help Nick Mallett coach a Barbarians side including Matt Giteau and Stirling Mortlock against the All Blacks at Twickenham in December.

Former Bulls boss Stefan Pretorius already is in place as the Kings' chief executive.
 

Lindommer

Simon Poidevin (60)
Staff member
But South African sources have revealed the SARU will counter that advantage by proposing that instead of the three competing countries breaking off into their own individual conferences, the derby matches be worked into the wider draw. That would mean that the Waratahs, Brumbies, Reds and Western Force all would play the Kings in Port Elizabeth as part of their annual tours to South Africa, while the Kings, in turn, would play all four provinces as part of their annual sweep through Australia and New Zealand.

"The impact of the logistics would be fairly trivial," the South African contact said. "It would mean the Kings play six matches in Australia and New Zealand, not five, while the Australian provinces would play three matches annually in South Africa, in place of the current arrangement where they play three one year and only two the next."

I nearly choked on my corn flakes when I read that. The SARU honestly expect Australia and New Zealand to accept playing the Southern Spears in Port Elizabeth even though those games are part of the Australian conference. Madness.
 

Moses

Simon Poidevin (60)
Staff member
It'd screw up the timing too, there was meant to be a local derby window and a main comp window
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Melbourne Super Bid favoured by TV but the cant find a sponsor.

and agree with Skotman, Saru is mad risking the heart beat of our rugby, the CC, selling it to help Aus getting a provincial competition. They are to piss poor rto get their own one going while Saru make a club one , Varsity Cup profitable.

Marinos and Saru better fight and fight hard to get the Kings in otherwise they'll choke in their own Corn Flakes.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
This is the stupidy of Saru per Tony McKeever
SA Rugby’s eyes wide shut



Melbourne or Mandela Bay?

The decision as to which franchise gets the 5th Australian-based and 15th Super Rugby franchise, will be announced on October 21 by Sanzar. This has not been a simple bid process in which prospective Super Rugby franchise teams simply respond to the criteria of the bid document (See it here1-sanzar-super-15-application.pdf) in a free and fair selection process, which the press releases trotted out by SA Rugby and the ARU would have you believe about their respective “compelling” bid presentations, state of readiness, financial sustainability and player pool. There is a more complex, dare I say, sinister, cunning and very naive approach towards selecting an additional Super Rugby franchise to participate in the Super 15 tournament from 2011 to 2015 and you can decide for yourself which labels can be attributed to which union.

This is why.

Sooner, rather than later, it will be revealed that the South African rugby administrators tasked with upholding and increasing the value of SA Rugby’s intellectual rugby properties in the international and Southern Hemisphere rugby markets, were duped spectacularly and succumbed to the Australian and New Zealand agendas, so much so, that they will ultimately be responsible for the failure of South Africa to acquire the 15th Super Rugby franchise. It also speaks volumes in endorsing that age old legendary mafiosi statement, “that you do not bring a knife to a gun fight”, which is what SA Rugby did.

And there are two reasons for this that are and will be fatal to the submission of the Southern Kings bid.

The first, is that in 2008 the ARU championed and sold the 3-conference Super 15 Rugby system of 5 Super Rugby Teams for each of the South African, New Zealand and Australian rugby unions, from 2011 to 2015. This was “sold” to all at Sanzar, under the pretext it is more cost-effective, involves less travelling (which SA Rugby was always on about) and especially that local derbies attract higher gate attendances which is key to the fans and especially the paymaster Newscorp and SuperSport vis a vis increased viewership for their advertisers.

Then, the second and most lethal reason, is the agreement signed off by SA Rugby, in May, in which Marinos and Hoskins in Dublin, unanimously agreed with Sanzar, to a 3-way split of the Super Rugby broadcast revenues, because each of the Sanzar partners would now have 5 Super rugby teams apiece in each of the 3-conferences. This had to be agreed upon before going into the proposal to Newscorp re-extending the broadcast agreement through till 2015.

Quite apart from this drop in share of broadcast revenues, for SA Rugby, from 38% to 33.3% which represents a loss of R10 million over 5 years to each of SA Rugby’s 14 unions, for a total of R150 million, it also means that this revenue now fills the treasuries of the NZRU and ARU to the tune of R150 million, which in time will come back to haunt SA Rugby.
In essence that is a spectacular R300 million blunder by SA Rugby, in that they shed R150 million and that the R150 million “donation” went to SA Rugby’s arch rivals. That 3-way split deal between the Sanzar partners, is now etched and reflected into the Newscorp broadcast deal, which sets the precedent in signed-off documents, that ensures that each of the Sanzar unions gets an equal 3-way split of the revenues because each has 5 teams in the Super 15 tournament with 3 conferences.

It is a travesty and of great sadness, that in over 5 years, which is a lifetime for a rugby player, that all the 200 000 Southern and Eastern Cape rugby players, at over 900 schools and over 450 rugby clubs, have had their hopes raised and dashed and raised again, as it is almost certainly game over for the Southern Kings, participating in the Super 15 from 2011 to 2015, as they have been scripted out by Sanzar.
Had Marinos and Hoskins in May tabled the same cooing rationale why the Southern Kings should be included in the Super 15, as they did in their effusive release Friday, which also happen to be the exact reasons and basis for hanging on to SA Rugby’s rightful 38% share of the broadcast revenues and not conceding the 5% and 5th Super Rugby franchise to Australia, SA Rugby would not be in this predicament.

The self-same reasons SA Rugby offered up for the “compelling” bid for the 15th Super Rugby franchise, were as valid in June 2005 when the 6th South African Super Rugby franchise was created, as much as they are now. This did not happen overnight or in the last 5 years, but it has and SA Rugby has spent tens of millions of rands excluding the Southern and Eastern Cape

But here is the real trouble.

I have no doubt that the 60-page Southern Kings presentation is as good as the SA Rugby 2015 and 2019 Rugby World Cup bid document as it is the same SA Rugby team that submitted that presentation, who also did the Southern Kings bid. Only it is not about the document, it is all about having the vision, the savvy, the nous, the street smarts and a deck of intelligence to get to “YES”. They have it and we don’t.

But what happens if and when the Southern Kings lose out to Melbourne on October 21? Who stays and who goes?

I can surely describe a sequence of predictable events and outrage that will occur, but what it does show is that SA Rugby has not planned for this eventuality and established a hands-on crisis management team that will surely have to defuse the conflict that is about to erupt and be waged among SA Rugby’s 14 unions, SA Rugby, the 6 Super Rugby franchises, government, provincial government, broadcasters and sponsors.

There will be no arbitration if Melbourne wins, as SA Rugby themselves agreed to and endorsed a 3-conference, 5-team format for each of the Sanzar partners and that was basically “signed off” and cast in stone, by the unanimous Sanzar 3-way revenue split of the broadcast revenues of the Super 15 TV proposal, which has already been submitted to Newscorp.

The kicker in all of this is that all of this was sanctioned and agreed to by Sanzar’s CEO, who happens to be none other than the self-same acting MD of SA Rugby, Andy Marinos.

The buck stops there.

If there is any opposition, from SA Rugby to Melbourne winning the 15th franchise I can hear O’Neill of the ARU and Tew of the NZRU, saying: “But Andy you as Sanzar CEO agreed to this and signed off on this last year and again in May and it was made a condition of the Expression of Interest and it is included in the broadcast deal to Newscorp.”

You see Marinos and Hoskins should have made it conditional in May this year that SA Rugby gets to keep its 38% share of the revenues and that the 6th South African franchise be the 15th Super Rugby team. SA Rugby should have dropped in their own conditions and riders to retain and increase revenue and especially to ensure that the 6th Southern and Eastern Cape franchise is included, given the sheer size of SA Rugby’s own market, which is more than twice the combined NZRU and ARU rugby markets.

Instead O’Neill knows he has R75 million coming the ARU’s way from 2011 to 2015 that will assist the Melbourne Super 15 and the other R75 million is incentive enough for Tew of the NZRU to back O’Neill on this. Two to one on voting and glances to the head of the table in the direction of Marinos, who not only agreed to this, endorsed it and signed off on this.

The trajectory of these decisions will negatively impact SA Rugby deep into the future unless an immaculate solution is found to embrace the 6th South African franchise and remove conflict and mayhem in South African rugby.

Having spelled out the most likely scenario to face South African rugby on October 21, there still is the immaculate solution to remedy SA Rugby’s Super Rugby dilemma and rid it of this perpetual conflict and cannibalism, but that solution will be for next week.

Super Rugby factoids:

Rugby in the Southern Hemisphere, especially in the Sanzar countries, is principally driven by the capital infusion from Newscorp, which buys the broadcast rights from Sanzar for the Super Rugby Super 14 series, Tri-Nations and British and Irish Lions Tours.

These rights are then syndicated out to countries around the world so Newscorp recoups its investment and then profits from the selling of on-air advertising in various markets.

This in essence is the financial bedrock on which SA Rugby, New Zealand and Australia build or run their domestic games because a large percentage of the cash then trickles down from the parent union to the respective provincial unions.

South Africa has been in the losing stakes of negotiations from start to finish as there were the 2006-2010 terms and conditions set in 2004, which were agreed that year and also set the precedent for the division of the broadcast revenues for the Super 14 competition et al. They were entirely and conveniently disregarded by the Australian and New Zealand unions, who railroaded their agendas through and around the SA Rugby delegates, who will be caught in the halogen headlights on October 21 when the 5th Australian-based franchise is announced.

Sanzar would have you believe it is a straight and fair race between Melbourne and Mandela Bay to get the 15th franchise, now that Melbourne’s Victoria Rugby Union, with the assistance of the Australian Rugby Union and the Southern Kings (Border/SWD/EP unions) with the “support” of SA Rugby have submitted their bids in response to the Expression of Interest. (Click here for the real story) 1-sanzar-super-15-application.pdf

On closer inspection the Southern Kings are playing against a stacked deck that was choreographed 18 months ago and set in motion in May with an irretrievable agreement among the Sanzar partners.

Sanzar, the three-nation grouping of South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, which runs the Super 14 competition, boasted a 25% increase in revenues on the old contract when announcing a new TV rights deal late in 2004.

The original $555 million 10-year deal signed when rugby union went professional was structured to compound by 7% annually, rising to $82 million in the final year, yet when the new five-year contract of $323 million was announced for the 2006-2010 Super Rugby tournament, the SA Rugby Union declined to say it was actually less than the final five years of the old deal.

So what will SA Rugby say when its next contract is signed for the 2011-2015 broadcast deal with Newscorp.

The current broadcast deal, as well as SA Rugby and Super Rugby Franchise Participation Agreement with its six franchises, expires on May 30 of the 2010 season. This meant that Sanzar’s new and proposed competition structure was scheduled to be in the hands of one of the rights holders, News Limited, by June 30 and they were in turn, to respond with a counter offer by August 31. That offer came in an e-mail from Newscorp on Friday night August 27, so the negotiations are well under way around the 3 conference of 5 teams each.

South Africa contributed more than 50% of the revenues to the Sanzar partnership, and should rightfully be entitled to at least 38% share of the broadcast sponsorship revenues.

Proportionately NZRU and ARU each received 32% and 29% respectively of the revenues, which was the precedent set in 2004. In fact SA Rugby should have asked for and received, a greater percentage than 38%, as their delivery of rugby inventory and broadcast value is far greater than New Zealand and Australia combined.

It is not justifiable, especially when one puts the size of the respective rugby markets in perspective and evaluates just how significant a rugby market South Africa is to the Sanzar alliance. Consider the following club and registered player numbers:

1. South Africa: 1010 clubs and 512 000 registered rugby players.
2. New Zealand: 595 clubs and 140 000 registered rugby players.
3. Australia: 848 clubs and 83 000 registered rugby players.

So the devastating effect of this 5% concession, is that SA Rugby has surrendered R150 million in revenue that should have come to SA Rugby and its 14 Rugby Unions, from 2011 to 2015, benefiting each of them by R2 million a year for the next five years.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
In short, JON again triumphs. Sells the idea of the S15 to SA on the grounds that they can compete for the spot, knowing that they have no realistic chance.
 

waratahjesus

Greg Davis (50)
this is the greatest piece of propaganda in history, this makes JON look like he isnt trying.
SArugby in the face of international financial pressures decided to sign on to pool the tv profits and divide them equally amoungst an equal number of teams. they agreed, there was no secret ballet or conspiricy, its fair, the size of south africas playing stocks mean nothing in the super 15 sompetition, its a bigger competition that south africa chooses to be a part of.

they kick up a fuss and say they dont need sanzar everytime there is a negotiation on something and they always end up signing cos they have no place else to go!

how the f did they contribute 50% of the revenue to super 14? what a crock of shite!

there counting there curry cup money and adding it on to sanzar that isnt even a part of it!

i have never laughed so hard in my life!
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
waratahjesus said:
this is the greatest piece of propaganda in history, this makes JON look like he isnt trying.
SArugby in the face of international financial pressures decided to sign on to pool the tv profits and divide them equally amoungst an equal number of teams. they agreed, there was no secret ballet or conspiricy, its fair, the size of south africas playing stocks mean nothing in the super 15 sompetition, its a bigger competition that south africa chooses to be a part of.

they kick up a fuss and say they dont need sanzar everytime there is a negotiation on something and they always end up signing cos they have no place else to go!

how the f did they contribute 50% of the revenue to super 14? what a crock of shite!

there counting there curry cup money and adding it on to sanzar that isnt even a part of it!

i have never laughed so hard in my life!
Croke of shite? NerwsCorp get the 50% from SuperSport for TV rights. Keep on laughing.

Agree Saru should have kicked SANZAR under the arse if they had guts but they are to vokken dumb. Tew is even more dummer.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Scarfman said:
In short, JON again triumphs. Sells the idea of the S15 to SA on the grounds that they can compete for the spot, knowing that they have no realistic chance.
We'll see about that. Hopefull Saru will fight this one to the bitter end, but I dont have high hopes. At least things are happening in PE at the moment. They look like lifting their heads by appointing Solomons as coach, EP usually at the bottom made the semis in the first division and SWD will play tonight in the final and will try and will play for promotion to the Premium CC Division. I have no doubt the Kings catchment area have a very good schoolboy player base, already a sttled supporter base, they will garuantee a 25,000 supporters for their home matches and they sure have the biggest black population to explore and growth the game of rugby.

What do Melbourne offer rugbywise?
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Lindommer said:
But South African sources have revealed the SARU will counter that advantage by proposing that instead of the three competing countries breaking off into their own individual conferences, the derby matches be worked into the wider draw. That would mean that the Waratahs, Brumbies, Reds and Western Force all would play the Kings in Port Elizabeth as part of their annual tours to South Africa, while the Kings, in turn, would play all four provinces as part of their annual sweep through Australia and New Zealand.

"The impact of the logistics would be fairly trivial," the South African contact said. "It would mean the Kings play six matches in Australia and New Zealand, not five, while the Australian provinces would play three matches annually in South Africa, in place of the current arrangement where they play three one year and only two the next."

I nearly choked on my corn flakes when I read that. The SARU honestly expect Australia and New Zealand to accept playing the Southern Spears in Port Elizabeth even though those games are part of the Australian conference. Madness.
Thats only fair and will level those teams compare to the travelling our teams have to do by visiting NZ and Aus.
 

waratahjesus

Greg Davis (50)
Scarfman said:
Yes WJ, do your research, son. RSA has by far the largest share of rugby pay tv subscribers.

yes, but were talking revenues, not subscribers,
without the newscorp money, there would be no competition, no one is twisting south africas arm to be a part of this.
south africa need it to develop there game, they just piss moan about and put out weak bullshit figures to back up crap.
the 38% model was based on NZ and AUS bending over to accomadate SA, we dont need to anymore, all the money is going in a pool and being divided.

it will be interesting to see if the kings get in, my understanding is, each team gets a grant and then the host union is given money to distribute amoungst grass roots, would the kings money be given to the aru considering its there
conference?

http://m.sportbusiness.com/news/164175/new-south-african-tv-deal-hits-nz-and-australia-rugby-unions
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
So tell my NewsCorp is all Australian in your eyes. So why the fuck are they then interested to finance this competition?

Why cant Melbourne find a sponsor? Griquas , EP , just about every single SA province have a sponsor.

Why cant you lot get a provincial competition going?

Pretty simple, they cant and need the help of SA and NZ to sponsor them.
 

waratahjesus

Greg Davis (50)
PaarlBok said:
So tell my NewsCorp is all Australian in your eyes. So why the fuck are they then interested to finance this competition?
no, newscorp are a bussiness in my eyes, they also pretty much run pay tv in NZ & AUS and without there money the game would probably be far far worse off in both countries. i believe there interested in broadcasting this competition due to the fact that people like you and me then pay a tv station that has either payed them or they own to watch the f'n thing and they make money out of it!

Why cant Melbourne find a sponsor? Griquas , EP , just about every single SA province have a sponsor.
Melbourne will have no trouble finding a sponsor, they already have smaller sponsors, we only just agreed on who would be administrating the team a couple of weeks ago, things move forward from here. Almost every club side in australia has a sponsor and this will be no different, my team down in lowly second division subbies is sponsored!

Why cant you lot get a provincial competition going?
mostly due to rugby league as much as every rugby fan would like to think not. Union is not our national sport, nor is it in the top two or possibly three, to start a national comp here requires alot of money and financial backing and then the breaking down of barriers and competitions in the surburban systems to accomadate it. perhaps if it had happened before super rugby it would have been easier, but in basic terms its like asking your currie cup teams to give up there best players so that they can play a comp above what there currently playing. then you have to get the revenue back and the fact of the matter is, with three major sports competiting for the dollar over winter, adding another comp is unlikely to find the necessary dollar in the current climate to be self sustaining, maybe we could use the extra money south africa "gave up" to fund it?

Pretty simple, they cant and need the help of SA and NZ to sponsor them.
and if SA didnt need it, then why dont they walk? cos they would go broke and all the bullshit about playing in europe and so forth would be exposed as even more dribble than there national coach could come up with if he attended a gay racism march in the main street of joberg!
and NZ on top, need it just as much, or has the downsizing of there national comp twice due to monetry concerns not been enough for anyone to take notice?
 

waratahjesus

Greg Davis (50)
"That's because the Sanzar partners have agreed as of 2011 to split all broadcast revenue on an equal basis with each country taking 33.3 per cent.

While that may sound good for the economically challenged New Zealand to be on an equal footing with their financially heavyweight partners, it is, in fact, Australia and South Africa who are the big winners in this agreement.

Under the existing deal South Africa took slightly more than 38 per cent of the revenue, New Zealand about 33 per cent and Australia about 28 per cent. South Africa had a bigger share to reflect that they put into the total pot the money they raised for selling the rights to the Currie Cup.

South Africa have only agreed to drop their share as they have already sold the rights to the Currie Cup separately from 2011. They sold those for US$90m with some suggestion that the purchaser, Supersport, may have overpaid amid predictions the South African Government were set to introduce anti-siphoning laws that would have forced much of the Currie Cup to be broadcast on terrestrial TV."

by Gregor Paul
may 2009
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sanzar/news/article.cfm?o_id=500498&objectid=10575560

i submit my research as requested scarfie!
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
waratahjesus said:
PaarlBok said:
So tell my NewsCorp is all Australian in your eyes. So why the fuck are they then interested to finance this competition?
no, newscorp are a bussiness in my eyes, they also pretty much run pay tv in NZ & AUS and without there money the game would probably be far far worse off in both countries. i believe there interested in broadcasting this competition due to the fact that people like you and me then pay a tv station that has either payed them or they own to watch the f'n thing and they make money out of it!

Why cant Melbourne find a sponsor? Griquas , EP , just about every single SA province have a sponsor.
Melbourne will have no trouble finding a sponsor, they already have smaller sponsors, we only just agreed on who would be administrating the team a couple of weeks ago, things move forward from here. Almost every club side in australia has a sponsor and this will be no different, my team down in lowly second division subbies is sponsored!

Why cant you lot get a provincial competition going?
mostly due to rugby league as much as every rugby fan would like to think not. Union is not our national sport, nor is it in the top two or possibly three, to start a national comp here requires alot of money and financial backing and then the breaking down of barriers and competitions in the surburban systems to accomadate it. perhaps if it had happened before super rugby it would have been easier, but in basic terms its like asking your currie cup teams to give up there best players so that they can play a comp above what there currently playing. then you have to get the revenue back and the fact of the matter is, with three major sports competiting for the dollar over winter, adding another comp is unlikely to find the necessary dollar in the current climate to be self sustaining, maybe we could use the extra money south africa "gave up" to fund it?

Pretty simple, they cant and need the help of SA and NZ to sponsor them.
and if SA didnt need it, then why dont they walk? cos they would go broke and all the bullshit about playing in europe and so forth would be exposed as even more dribble than there national coach could come up with if he attended a gay racism march in the main street of joberg!
and NZ on top, need it just as much, or has the downsizing of there national comp twice due to monetry concerns not been enough for anyone to take notice?

OK so for this unknown Melbourne poster,

Do they have a team, a coach, a owner, a Stadium to play in at this stage?

The Kings have all those plus they have a support base with a rugby culture already in place. In fact they have already played this year against the BIL and nearly toppled them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top