ps The Stagg i have just watched an interview with Pieter De Villiers he really is a complete idiot. Apparently now SA lost in NZ because the world cup organisers have got in the ear of the refs to help NZ out. Dubious reffing is one thing a conspiracy is another sack the side show clown before you guys regret it.
References :

1. What would be a viable option outside of the SANZAR trio to base a Super-whatever franchise? A Pacific Island team has been tried a couple of times and always failed. Not surprising — they simply don’t have the population base, infrastructure or GDP to support a team. I don’t think that Japan (as yet) is a serious option.

The Super-15 right now already has horrific problems caused by the travel distances, time changes and associated jet lag. It is so bad that not so long ago the South African teams were seriously exploring the option of joining an enlarged Magners League. The travel distances would be no worse, and at least they are in the same time zones.

It didn’t happen, but it still leaves the question — where could a team based outside of Australia/South Africa/New Zealand possibly be based. Quick answer — nowhere.

2. On a more positive note, remember — there is soon going to be an influx of quality Argentinian players into the Super Rugby franchises when that country joins the tri-nations competition. This will be a rising tide which will lift all the boats/teams. Possibly enough players to support one or two new franchises with no reduction in quality.
References :

The simple answer is that we do not know why it was chosen, but there are three possibilities:
The royal English rose is white and red. This rose was created to symbolise the marriage between Henry VII (House of Lancaster) and Elizabeth (House of York) and the end of the War of the Roses. Therefore, the ‘English’ rose is not red, but half red and half white. However, subsequent monarchs (such as Elizabeth I) continued to be associated with the red rose because they were descended from the House of Lancaster. So it is the red rose (rather than the red and white rose) which is often, incorrectly, seen as symbolising England or the English monarchy. Therefore the RFU might have selected the red rose for this reason.
Secondly, Lawrence Sheriff, the founder of Rugby School (where the game started) was presented with a coat of arms by Elizabeth I and in doing so she allowed him to use her red (Lancaster) rose [see above] on the crest. When he founded Rugby School the new institution based their own coat of arms on his, and so the red rose ended up on the Rugby School crest. The white kit worn by England was taken from the kit used at Rugby School, so it might be that a symbolic image was also taken from the school crest as a badge. Even more likely is the possibility that a combination of this connection with Rugby School and the incorrect identification of the red rose as the ‘English’ rose
The third possibility is that the red rose is actually used because it is also the symbol of the county of Lancashire. Of the subcommittee of men who selected the first England side in 1871, two came from clubs in Lancashire (Liverpool and Manchester). It is therefore possible that they were also responsible for selecting the England kit (including the red rose). However, it is highly unlikely that the other RFU Committee members would have accepted such a blatantly regional emblem on the national jersey and they would have reversed such a decision immediately.
References :
http://www.rfu.com/microsites/museum/page.aspx?section=140&sectionTitle=Why+a+Rose%3F

Nope sorry you’ve got me on that one too ??
References :