Do the Tier 1 nations have an obligation to help the minnows?

Do the top rugby nations have a duty to help the lesser nations?

This is something we hear regularly, especially here in NZ where some believe we have abandoned the Pacific Nations.

But do we have this duty or should we be allowed to focus on being the best that we can be?

When all is said and done, I think that the leading rugby nations would be happy to help the small guys but aren't willing due to the financial consequences.

The main way to help these minnows is perceived to be to play them more often. An example often cited is that the All Blacks have not played a test match in the Pacific Islands (though we did play Fiji in a non-test match up there once). Those pointing fingers at NZ (and indeed the other top nations) show that we have Ireland, Wales, France and England journeying over here to play us regularly, but we rarely host the Pacific Nations in the same capacity (we used to play a match against one of them at the start of the season a decade ago, but that was discontinued. I recall Tew mentioning that was due to the matches being not well supported but looking at the attendances they're not too bad 20k+ at North Harbour so he must have been referring to the networks not liking them). The argument against these matches is always that they draw less revenue than the bigger teams

So should we play more games against tier two nations? And how? Do we add these matches onto an already full schedule and demand our leading players to endure more matches? Or do we remove a fixture against an England or an Ireland to accommodate a tier two side and take a financial hit? What about for the elite nations that are struggling financially like the Aussies? Can we demand that they lose money and not play Wales or France so that Tonga or Romania can play a top team?

One idea I've thought about are tours, but I don't think they would be feasible. New Zealand, South Africa, France and England (maybe include Ireland/Wales/Scotland as one entity here) have pretty good provincial sides who would provide competition for the minnows. So why not have the minnows tour one of these nations, taking on the provinces? I think that local fans would be keen to see their province take on an international side, even if it is a Georgia or a Russia. If we can get two tours at the same time in the same country then they could meet up at the end in an international at the main rugby stadium. Imagine the thrill for these players to be playing at Ellis Park or Eden Park or Twickers! It may have to be a curtain raiser to a big game though. But of course this has problems. If the country is amateur (e.g. Namibia) then they would have to provide income to the players to compensate them, whilst if the team is semi-professional with some players in the French leauges (e.g. Georgia) then they'd face issues getting the players released. And then there's scheduling in the host nation.


So what can we do? I'm sure we all would like to help these baby nations, but how? Hopefully when they introduce the global season in a couple of years they also include provisions to allow for more interaction between the different tiers

And I guess we ought to congratulate Scotland for touring the PIs last year, and Wales for going to Japan this season. And to New Zealand (to a lesser extent) for arranging a match in Japan too (not sure if this is confirmed yet)

Yes we should.

Personally think it's reprehensible that we don't play the odd match in the islands. It's great that Scotland have. Probably should be noted that this is largely because they classified themselves as 2nd tier and opted out of the 3 test tours (i.e. NZ, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Wales, France, England and Ireland).

I think obligation is the wrong word. No rugby nation owes any rugby nation anything unless they have made some kind of deal.
If we want to grow the game then play the PIs here or there. As well as all of the other rugby minnows.
If we want to be good PI neighbours then find ways to play them them - great.
But we don't have an obligation other than to nurture the sport in NZ.
It's not like other countries are finding ways to help the NZRFU pay its way.
What are we or anyone doing for Aus rugby that is going broke?
So yes we should help other countries to grow the sport, acknowledge old relationships but they are not obligations in my mind.

I'm pretty sure the IRB has 'forced' some of these tours haven't they? The IRB announced the tour schedule for the next few years, and I'm sure there was little choice in in for the touring nations. I remember a press release a while back saying that the IRB was brining back these tours to give the 'minnows' meaningful competition. There's a tour schedule for the next few years on the IRB website somewhere.

The structure for the season has three bits. One is for a competition, e.g 6 nations, Pacific Nations Cup, etc. The two other ones are for Europe to tour the rest of the world (our summer) and the other is for the rest of the world to tour Europe (our Autumn).

There is no slot for New Zealand to tour the islands. That's OUR job and we've been failing. The SH sides need to be playing the European teams, maybe as mid week games.

The quadrangle competition this summer is a great idea. Maybe New Zealand, Australia and South Africa could each host one. But I can see them not makin as much money for the hosts.

Very good Hammer.
It would be interesting for the ABs play some other European teams instead of just the big 6. I think we just play each other far too often.
In fact I could imagine playing a warm up against one of the European minnows before having 2/3 tests against one of the 6 nations countries.

I think playing a series against 2 of the 6 nations countries every year is a great way to keep the rivalry fresh. Eg now we have 3 games against France, later we would have 3 games against Ireland. Next year Wales and Italy. The year after England and Scotland. Each of those years we do a warm up against one of Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, (probably in NZ as there's better support alround but in the islands is great too) and a warm up against one of Spain, Russia, Georgia, Romania every Northern tour.
I personally would like to see the RC played every 2/4 years with 2 years being put aside for a Southern Hemisphere tour of SA, Aus or Argentina.

I think this would mean enough games to earn $$ for everyone but also enough variety each year for there to be some novelty.

Before the 2007 RWC SA allowed Namibia to take part in the Vodacom Cup (third tier comp after SuperXV and Currie Cup) to prepare for the tournament. There has also been an invitational Argentinian team in this comp: Pampas XV.

SA will also use Namibia Senior team as a warm up match for the Junior Boks before a tournament.

I like the idea of 2nd tier nations touring SA / NZ in Jan early Feb to play in warm up matches for the real season ahead.

That Nambian team in the Vodacom cup folded did it not? Its no longer in the Vodacom

It has now but it was in

Do the Tier 1 nations have an obligation to help the minnows?

I think yes.

Think of it in terms of simple investment strategy instead of philosophy. If tier 1 nations help grow Rugby in other nations, it will have returns coming back across the Rugby world. This means more exposure and more money coming back for all. Helping grow Rugby globally, or at least in selected countries at the moment, will help everyone. The rising tide raises all ships, no?

doctor_grey wrote:Do the Tier 1 nations have an obligation to help the minnows?

I think yes.

Think of it in terms of simple investment strategy instead of philosophy. If tier 1 nations help grow Rugby in other nations, it will have returns coming back across the Rugby world. This means more exposure and more money coming back for all. Helping grow Rugby globally, or at least in selected countries at the moment, will help everyone. The rising tide raises all ships, no?

You think?

Football is big all over the world but mainly only certain parts of the world still make most money from it, sucking interest in it and its merchandise from all corners of the football mad world but still holding the keys to the Porche.

So, in purely gangster terms, perhaps the globalistion of rugby is more money for folks. But I'd think the more money will still be laundered in the 'traditional' homelands for another 50 or so years at least. Better perhaps that we don't become hypocrites and choose instead to keep the party in-house. At least the present system is honest in its narcissism.

BTW, how many times in football do you see 9th ranked side in the world compete against the 22nd ranked side?

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Do the Tier 1 nations have an obligation to help the minnows?

I think yes.

Think of it in terms of simple investment strategy instead of philosophy. If tier 1 nations help grow Rugby in other nations, it will have returns coming back across the Rugby world. This means more exposure and more money coming back for all. Helping grow Rugby globally, or at least in selected countries at the moment, will help everyone. The rising tide raises all ships, no?

You think?

Football is big all over the world but mainly only certain parts of the world still make most money from it, sucking interest in it and its merchandise from all corners of the football mad world but still holding the keys to the Porche.

So, in purely gangster terms, perhaps the globalistion of rugby is more money for folks. But I'd think the more money will still be laundered in the 'traditional' homelands for another 50 or so years at least. Better perhaps that we don't become hypocrites and choose instead to keep the party in-house. At least the present system is honest in its narcissism.

BTW, how many times in football do you see 9th ranked side in the world compete against the 22nd ranked side?

Tier 1 nations are too busy trying to make as much money as possible. Helping minnows is well down their list of priorities.

South Africa is currently hosting Scotland, Samoa and Italy: does that count.....

dallym wrote:Do the top rugby nations have a duty to help the lesser nations?

Yes and they do help them, the IRB has made it mandatory for the Tier 1 European countries to tour tier B nations.
Wales are touring Japan in 2013, And the Pacific Islands in 2017.
Ireland are currently in the USA and Canada, while their A team is in Georgia.
The IRB has really stepped up competition for developing Nations in the last few years.

dallym wrote:This is something we hear regularly, especially here in NZ where some believe we have abandoned the Pacific Nations.

I don't see the argument, New Zealand scouts still trawl the Islands for talent, which they then bring into their academies and train in the toughest environment in world. New Zealand have so many potential professional players, yet still employ islanders in their Super XV squads. What is stopping them from having a New Zealand only policy?

dallym wrote:But do we have this duty or should we be allowed to focus on being the best that we can be?

Both, the balance needs to be right. The next step is a European Cup really.

dallym wrote:So what can we do? I'm sure we all would like to help these baby nations, but how? Hopefully when they introduce the global season in a couple of years they also include provisions to allow for more interaction between the different tiers

We can't have a global season because it's summer now in the Northern Hemisphere, and winter in the Southern Hemisphere.
A universal rugby season is impossible that's why we don't do it. Most rugby grounds are owned by councils and in the summer cricket is played on many of them. While moving rugby to the summer in Australia would be suicide because it would be head to head with rugby league.

To spread the game the best teams have to tour lower ranked nations as a flagship for the sport...

Romainia almost beat the All Blacks in the 80s, I don't think the two have played since.

I like the idea suggested that we play a European lightweight at the start of the end of year tour. Hansen apparently wanted the Japan test to allow the youngsters to get experience/leadership, and this could be applied to a match against Georgia or Russia. If we take an expanded squad then one extra match should not increase the players workload.


and an interesting point from Shifty - it's now mandatory for the top European teams to tour tier 2 nations. If we expect the Europeans to, then why don't we expect the same thing from the SANZAR nations?

Good news that the NZ Maori are playing a game against the USA in November in Phili.

"Yes and they do help them, the IRB has made it mandatory for the Tier 1 European countries to tour tier B nations.
Wales are touring Japan in 2013, And the Pacific Islands in 2017.
Ireland are currently in the USA and Canada, while their A team is in Georgia.
The IRB has really stepped up competition for developing Nations in the last few years."

That is true. But it needs to put perspective. Ireland, wales and England will tour when there is a Lions tour on and their squads are weakened and their tour options are limited (i.e. France will tour one of the other SH giants). In other words if they want to tour they have no choice. Additionally Scotland has opted out of tier 1 which means they are going to end up touring lesser lights. the same is not true of the AB's, Boks or Wallabies.

"I don't see the argument, New Zealand scouts still trawl the Islands for talent, which they then bring into their academies and train in the toughest environment in world. New Zealand have so many potential professional players, yet still employ islanders in their Super XV squads. What is stopping them from having a New Zealand only policy?"

Overstated. If you have been reading the posts on this site you'll be aware that only professional teams that have less foreign players in them are those based in South Africa. Added to that, most of the odd "foreign" that are employed in NZ still qualify, can play and are released to their national sides. Given that we only have 150 odd full professionals, and our structure is geared towards the AB's, most "foreign" players end up having to ply their trade in Europe. I think you are confusing people of Polynesian decent with nationality.

Thats not quite right Black. Remember Ireland toured us last year while Scotland visited Aus and Samoa/Fiji and if I remember right France played Argentina, England played SA and Wales played Aus so they don't only tour when weakened.

I think I'm right. Probably just need to restate it in a different way. The current format is tours in June down south. With Wales, Ireland, France and England making a three match tour of Argentina, NZ, South Africa or Australia. Once every 4 years there is a Lions tour. The tours these years are different as the Lions are touring and there is an additional team in the mix, whilst the home nations sides are understrength. This is the year when the tours are different. In terms of Scotland. They aren't making 3 test tours of the major SH countries in June as far as I know. Sure they played Australia last year. But it was warm up game as part of their tour to the south Pacific (albeit they won the game).

Rugby's Mammonists will continue serve their god and pray at their alters (the ones with the bullet-proof glass ceiling) both domestically and internationally.

Meantime, for display purposes only, a few plastic pearls may be cast before swine.

Has anyone seen the IRB rankings recently?

Code:

1(1)   NEW ZEALAND   90.08
2(2)   SOUTH AFRICA   86.94
3(3)   AUSTRALIA   86.87
4(4)   ENGLAND   83.72
5(5)   WALES   83.36
6(6)   FRANCE   81.59
7(7)   SAMOA   78.71
8(8) ARGENTINA   78.71
9(9)   IRELAND   78.05
10(10)   SCOTLAND   76.86
11(11)   TONGA   76.80
12(12)   ITALY   76.06
13(14)    FIJI   72.01
14(13)    CANADA   71.80
15(15)   JAPAN   68.91
16(16)   USA   67.93
17(17)   GEORGIA   67.66
18(18)   ROMANIA   65.82
19(19)   RUSSIA   62.34
20(20)   SPAIN   60.44

How come the 5&6Ns are the sole private fiefdoms of the traditional barons?
Because there are armed guards at the door - that's why.

Maybe its time to give samoa a seat (and voting rights) at the main table at the IRB?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Maybe its time to give samoa a seat (and voting rights) at the main table at the IRB?

Whilst Scotland and Italy continue to slide imperceptibly into into T3, why not?

I'm not trying to be offensive, but I could imagine Samoa getting a victory over the All blacks before Ireland,Scotland or wales.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I'm not trying to be offensive, but I could imagine Samoa getting a victory over the All blacks before Ireland,Scotland or wales.

Not trying to be offensive, but that'd be kinda like the All Blacks playing themselves?

Lets be clear in what regards "help" is.

Is it NZ, England, Wales etc playing full strength sides against minnows and giving them a royal thrashing...no, that doesnt achieve anything.

Is it putting systems in place to allow progression yes.

There are many 6n style cups around the world.

6n, the Euro nations (the 6n b competitions with lots of leagues, and promotion and relegation)
There is the African nations...again very similar, and the Asian Nations..and if im not mistaken i believe there is a South American version aswell...

These have all been set up to allow regular competition between equal sides..and promotion should they improve. It has helped the emergence of Georgia etc, whilst the African cup has seen teams like Morocco slowly overtake Namibia as the traditional top team after SA.

Add in The Pacific Cup...England playing a game in Uruguay this summer....and other competitions like the one in SA at the moment are all bringing teams on....

I think rugby is coming on nicely now...just look at how many teams are playing...

PS...whilst 7's is a different game to the 15's i think this has been another way of brining the sport to people...who see this version then progress to the 15's.

Kenya for example started doing well in 7's and have moved this on the bigger game.

Meanwhile, the rabbit fences are still in place lest any vermin get on the pasture.

I think at the lower levels there is systems in place so that any team can rise. The problem comes in getting into the top teirs.
1a sanzar
1b eng fra wal ire arg
2a scot ita samoa tonga
2b fiji jap usa canada georgia rom

The problem is see is getting teams up. Many people point to the loss of rominia when they were at the level of many of the top teams. Italy and the argies where only promoted when alot of their good team was old.

Canada are at the same level as the all but samoa of the PI teams.

This year you have the following good things.
1. The inclusion of the USA and Canada to the pacific cup (Which canada look like they might win)
2. The 4 team comp in SA with strongest teir 2 teams
3. The two nation style cups involving romania, russia, geogria & uraguary with a decent levelA teams. Georgia just lost to an irish team that could finish mid table in tbe rabbo.

I am a bit of a business man and dont beleive in doing things for nothing.
Adding japan, usa and canada to the pacific cup brings lots of potenial money to the PI teams who have the teams but not the money.
I think adding teir 2 teams to AIs is also good.

Another thing we forgeg that the PIs have been playing three teams in tbe AIs each year for ages so it is not like they dont get games. Compare that to the US, Canada, Japan and Geogria.
I would love for teams in 2b play rabo teams in the AIs

We (Newcastle Falcons) played tonga during the AI's and beat them...

Brendan wrote:I think at the lower levels there is systems in place so that any team can rise. The problem comes in getting into the top teirs.
1a sanzar
1b eng fra wal ire arg
2a scot ita samoa tonga
2b fiji jap usa canada georgia rom

The problem is see is getting teams up. Many people point to the loss of rominia when they were at the level of many of the top teams. Italy and the argies where only promoted when alot of their good team was old.

Canada are at the same level as the all but samoa of the PI teams.

This year you have the following good things.
1. The inclusion of the USA and Canada to the pacific cup (Which canada look like they might win)
2. The 4 team comp in SA with strongest teir 2 teams
3. The two nation style cups involving romania, russia, geogria & uraguary with a decent levelA teams. Georgia just lost to an irish team that could finish mid table in tbe rabbo.

I am a bit of a business man and dont beleive in doing things for nothing.
Adding japan, usa and canada to the pacific cup brings lots of potenial money to the PI teams who have the teams but not the money.
I think adding teir 2 teams to AIs is also good.

Another thing we forgeg that the PIs have been playing three teams in tbe AIs each year for ages so it is not like they dont get games. Compare that to the US, Canada, Japan and Geogria.
I would love for teams in 2b play rabo teams in the AIs

Precisely. Because mammonic fundamentalists have taken over the assylum, even the grammarticites have been displaced.

But all hope need not be lost - by reforming the global TV pie into Eastern and Western time zones:
Eastern: (Australasia, Southern Africa (for SH rugby's traditional and financial needs) and Asia).
Western: (Europe, Americas, Northern Africa)

GeordieFalcon wrote:We (Newcastle Falcons) played tonga during the AI's and beat them...

Italy and samoa and scotland are able to play the top 8 teams. I think that tonga and fiji are helped more by playing games against club/regions. What did fiji learn from there two games against england and ireland. Also why should them and tonga get games that canada aren't able to get. If you look at games played the PIs get far more games then the teams around them.

I would love to see the 6N u20 teams to play the B6N teams as both would learn more. But money wont allow it.

Grey if any area can afford to give moneh now and get it back in the future is europe.

I know there is the glass ceiling but with a few changes they could get so much back.

Italy for years were stuck in no mans land when they won the B6N but never went up till mostof that team were to old to make an impact on the six nations. Japan were in the same boat till they were allowed into the pacific cup.

It will be interesting to see how the league between germany, belgium and netherlands goes.

If dragons can be run for only about 4-5m you would wonder what it would cost to bave a 35 man fultime national team for the 10 teams below the 6nations. 1-1.5m should do it per team. 18 games a year at a level just below amlin. In five years it would be at a level to fund itself

Does anyone know the cost of running a currie cup team. Travel around europe must be similar to that of the SA or Oz.

greytiger wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Maybe its time to give samoa a seat (and voting rights) at the main table at the IRB?

Whilst Scotland and Italy continue to slide imperceptibly into into T3, why not?

This is the interesting point for me, how long do Samoa (or anyone else for that matter) have to be ranked above a current country with a seat to get the same rights as them? As assuming that countries outside the 6N/4N are encouraged to get better, it can only be a matter of time before the voting system needs to be changed.

Bathman_in_London wrote:

greytiger wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Maybe its time to give samoa a seat (and voting rights) at the main table at the IRB?

Whilst Scotland and Italy continue to slide imperceptibly into into T3, why not?

This is the interesting point for me, how long do Samoa (or anyone else for that matter) have to be ranked above a current country with a seat to get the same rights as them? As assuming that countries outside the 6N/4N are encouraged to get better, it can only be a matter of time before the voting system needs to be changed.

I suppose they would say that only at mens full international level are they better and that scotland and italy bring much more to the international table then Samoa

Bathman_in_London wrote:

greytiger wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Maybe its time to give samoa a seat (and voting rights) at the main table at the IRB?

Whilst Scotland and Italy continue to slide imperceptibly into into T3, why not?

This is the interesting point for me, how long do Samoa (or anyone else for that matter) have to be ranked above a current country with a seat to get the same rights as them? As assuming that countries outside the 6N/4N are encouraged to get better, it can only be a matter of time before the voting system needs to be changed.

They have to be above England, France, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand consistently without a break for 10 year two months before they get the same rights as them. But they only have to be above Scotland, Wales or Ireland for three months 2 days to get the same rights as them.

So it's clear some IRB cleric is out of a job as Samoa haven't been given their rights yet.

Or if not the same rights as the old boys club with 2 votes, then at least Samoa should have the same as the likes of Japan and Italy with 1 vote, rather than being lumped together with the likes of the Cook islands and having 1 joint vote.

Bathman_in_London wrote:Or if not the same rights as the old boys club with 2 votes, then at least Samoa should have the same as the likes of Japan and Italy with 1 vote, rather than being lumped together with the likes of the Cook islands and having 1 joint vote.

But then they'd have a giant vote instead of the joint vote they have now
I'll get my coat

Maybe two votes could be allocated to each of the teams which had highest # of weeks in top ten over the last five years, 1 vote to each of next ten over the next five and 0.5 to each of the 21-30 sides.

Recalculated annually before the AGM.

Something like that.

I always thought its better if sanzar breaks up and AUS and NZ concentrate on the Asia pacific market whilst SA links up with Europe.

After the RWC 2019 will be an ideal time to make a break... Added interest in the game in Japan could force the hands of sanzar and give them offers they can't refuse.

SA could mutliply their revenue many times over by linking up with Europe... A massive market for SA companies... Compared to AUS and NZ which has very little.

Giving a Pacific Islanders domestic club side lets say in Auckland would be a massive step but it could bring up racial tensions in NZ with ethnic Samoans etc siding with their brethren rather than the blues etc so it's a difficult one.

fa0019 wrote:I always thought its better if sanzar breaks up and AUS and NZ concentrate on the Asia pacific market whilst SA links up with Europe.

After the RWC 2019 will be an ideal time to make a break... Added interest in the game in Japan could force the hands of sanzar and give them offers they can't refuse.

SA could mutliply their revenue many times over by linking up with Europe... A massive market for SA companies... Compared to AUS and NZ which has very little.

Giving a Pacific Islanders domestic club side lets say in Auckland would be a massive step but it could bring up racial tensions in NZ with ethnic Samoans etc siding with their brethren rather than the blues etc so it's a difficult one.

I would love to see SA join up with europe but it wont happen as there would be too much money held by the 6nations and SA while the pacific region would not surive on mainly japanese money.
I think SA would like the fact that the currie cup would be the main competition but i think it will be anyway under new Super rugby format.
Europe, SA, and Japan are the only places where the money is to do things. The others can't realy afford to take hits for any time.

I think it could happen Brendan... SA are beginning to realise that they are contributing far more into the pot then they get out of Sanzar.

It would only be a domestic change anyhow... it wouldn't impact the RC or the 6N... if we get to a global season then I think its more than likely that it will happen.... financially it makes sense and with that comes decisions.

I hope anyhow.

I agree that SA shouldn't leave the RC but would they be allowed to take their clubs out and put the in europe. I think that without SA in the S15 it folds as attendances drop dramaticly without SA who give 50% of those who attend games. They also give a similar amount of money. The other 2 unions are running sizable losses at S15 level.
Travel would be less but so would home games.

Joining HC etc i think would double SA take home money. Which might mean they might keep more of their players while AUS & NZ would lose alot more. Also in the uk and ireland there is plenty of SA natives who would attend games

It's a bit like trading a Ferrari for a Lada.

In this analogy the Lada is more expensive than the Ferrari.  Yes, the Ferrari sure does drive nice.  But if you play in the Lada league for one year, you'd be able to purchase a dozen Ferraris with your loose change.

But you're still left with that awful feeling that someone you know may have seen driving a Lada.....

(see pdf attached - http://www.dogandlemon.com/articles/car-companies-brief-history/lada)

Oh dear. Imagine the feeling of shame and embarrassment of knowing that an acquaintance had a Ferrari.

Oi'll get me 'at.

SA teams will never play in Europe. They pride themselves in being from the southern hemisphere.