Japan, Pacific Islanders to join Super Rugby Reboot

by GloriousEmpire Tue 01 Oct 2013, 10:20 pm

First topic message reminder :

Yes it's a re-boot. But panic not, I'm not referring to Morne Steyn's tactics for the upcoming Ellis park show down.

Super Rugby is set to expand to Super-18 with the addition of an NZ based Pacific Islanders team, embracing the long standing synergy between pacific and NZ rugby, and most importantly the skill and excitement boost from the islands will be matched pragmatically with the addition of a super rich Japanese franchise.

This arrangement matches almost exactly my proposal made here just a few weeks ago. Coincidence? I think not. 606v2 is now clearly a source of ideas and inspiration for the games administrators and we should be collectively proud.

This arrangement also allows NZ players to seek the riches of Japanese rugby whilst still being eligible for All Blacks selection.

South Africa, leave this arrangement at your peril.

by fa0019 Wed 02 Oct 2013, 12:47 pm

England get a lot of stick for playing chaps like Hartley, Tuilagi (both came to UK as minors), Wales for North, Cuthbert etc etc.

But its a big issue in rugby today... the IRFU and the ARU project player worries me... signing talented young foreigners on condition of pledging themselves to host country for a bigger contract is a little below the belt in my book.

France held off for a long time but recently have included many foreign players, SA has taken the odd Zim player and they would have taken Daniel Adongo if he hadn't been rubbish (spotted playing 7s for Kenyan national side), quickly signed to the sharks, then the bulls, never made it... think he went to NFL.

by butterfingers Wed 02 Oct 2013, 12:51 pm

goneagain wrote:
Bathman_in_London wrote:If there is a PI team based in Auckland, how is not just another Kiwi team made up predominately of players of PI heritage?
Simple, according to butterfingers anybody of Pacific Island descent should not be allowed to be New Zealanders.
Even if they are born in and NZ and have never been outside NZ.

His rugby apartheid seems so logical.

Please quote where I've said PI decent players cannot turn out for NZ.

I was using NZ's history of luring players away from the islands with scholarships etc, and claimed there is now an influx of nations looking to join the party. Havn't France just set up base there?

My concern is not how NZ have benefited from PI players, but how PI rugby has been stunted by NZ over the years. How many times have they played each other in the last 50 years? Less than Fiji have played NZ in 7's in the last season I bet!

The blame isn't squarely on NZ though, as the world gets smaller we see PI families move to every corner, the Vunipolas, Falatau and Tuilagi are just 4 who play in the UK and call them home, because it is affordable to do so these days. Where England and Wales have benefited from these Islanders, is exactly how NZ have for 30 years plus.

The worrying aspect is that not what happened in the past, it's done and dusted, but whats happening in the future, other nations setting up camp on the Islands, and looking to pull these players away and now as if by magic NZ are the all mercifull pioneers of PI rugby? Fat chance, they want to make sure they have exclusivity as much as possible, and a Super Franchise, made up of PI players based in Auckland is perfect for that!

The wrestle for PI players isn't hurting PI players, or the unions alone, it's destroying the soul of the game!

by goneagain Wed 02 Oct 2013, 12:57 pm

It is a problem I agree. There seem to be no obvious solutions. I have no problem at all with the likes of Hartley and Manu playing for England. Even teenage immigrants who are part of a family unit would be acceptable in my view.
As others have expressed before, it's the likes of Flutey which seem to drive the debate. I would suggest that if a player has played professionally in one country at club level then the residence criteria should be extended.

Back on topic, the extension and change of SXV is a good thing. It has become a cumbersom, uneven tournament. The definition of the PI team needs some clarification though. As others have said, will it be mostly NZers of PI descent, therfore just another NZ franchise by default. or will it be made up of only PI born players? But that in itself opens up another can of worms.

by goneagain Wed 02 Oct 2013, 12:58 pm

butterfingers wrote:[ We need a rule change to allow Fiji Tonga and Samoa to be ring fenced, and every player of that decent at the age of 20 and below forced to compete for their heritaged nation. I think this will allow the PI teams to get to a strength and financial place where youngsters want to play for them, and can have that opportunity without having to look to NZ, or France!

by butterfingers Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:01 pm

goneagain wrote:It is a problem I agree. There seem to be no obvious solutions. I have no problem at all with the likes of Hartley and Manu playing for England. Even teenage immigrants who are part of a family unit would be acceptable in my view.
As others have expressed before, it's the likes of Flutey which seem to drive the debate. I would suggest that if a player has played professionally in one country at club level then the residence criteria should be extended.

Back on topic, the extension and change of SXV is a good thing. It has become a cumbersom, uneven tournament. The definition of the PI team needs some clarification though. As others have said, will it be mostly NZers of PI descent, therfore just another NZ franchise by default. or will it be made up of only PI born players? But that in itself opens up another can of worms.

But based in NZ it opens the residency up for option, is this not seen as a ploy by the NZRFU to lure PI players to their shores?

How would anyone else react if the Aviva Premiership entered a PI team based in London, luring players and coaches alike to the capitol to play, oh and if they qualify it's an unexpected side effect!

Whats to stop there, maybe London Welsh, Irish, and Scot start to become a similar thing, as does an SA, Aus and NZ team, what would be the hoopla if the Aviva Premiership decided to enter a Mauri team?

by butterfingers Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:04 pm

goneagain wrote:
butterfingers wrote:[ We need a rule change to allow Fiji Tonga and Samoa to be ring fenced, and every player of that decent at the age of 20 and below forced to compete for their heritaged nation. I think this will allow the PI teams to get to a strength and financial place where youngsters want to play for them, and can have that opportunity without having to look to NZ, or France!

Ring fenced, as in short term solution to aid a group of islands who produce exceptional talent but cannot afford to sustain their player base. And I stipulated juniors only.

It's such a shame your view is to screw as many small nations as you can to keep top of the pile, you sound like a multi billion pound burger franchise telling a small scottish farmer to take the Mc out of his farms name because it effects their brand!!!

by goneagain Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:11 pm

butterfingers wrote:But based in NZ it opens the residency up for option, is this not seen as a ploy by the NZRFU to lure PI players to their shores?

Exactly the can of worms I was talking about. However i think the mojority of the Samoa team are NZers anyway.

On the flip side, NZ can only select so many players. So if a squad of say 40 players were created, how many would make the ABs? With NZ already having 5 franchises. There would still be the vast majority of the squad eligible for their homelands. You would hope that it the 2(?) years it takes to get NZ residency that they would already have been selected for their national teams. And the fact that they are playing in such a high level comp would hopefully raise the standards and profile in the islands.

It is a curly one.

BTW still waiting for your list of scouted players.

by fa0019 Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:12 pm

My old youth coach used to play for London New Zealand and represented Middlesex at the same time (when it actually meant something too). Back in the day they were a strong outfit and were no mugs.

by butterfingers Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:17 pm

goneagain wrote:
butterfingers wrote:But based in NZ it opens the residency up for option, is this not seen as a ploy by the NZRFU to lure PI players to their shores?
Exactly the can of worms I was talking about.

On the flip side, NZ can only select so many players. So if a squad of say 40 players were created, how many would make the ABs? With NZ already having 5 franchises. There would still be the vast majority of the squad eligible for their homelands. You would hope that it the 2(?) years it takes to get NZ residency that they would already have been selected for their national teams. And the fact that they are playing in such a high level comp would hopefully raise the standards and profile in the islands.

It is a curly one.

BTW still waiting for your list of scouted players.

I see so NZ get the cream and whatever is left over is up for grabs, how immensely generous of you!

In this day and age a single top class player makes a huge difference, and at international level the differences are so small that every ounce of perceived advantage is looked for. Allowing the best of the best PI players to play on NZ soil, gain residency and challenge for an all black spot, while allowing every other player to return to his country does nothing for PI rugby, infact I would say it is not just a ploy to get young PI players residency for NZ, but to attract older PI players away from other nations with a decent playing wage and release clause for PI teams. It's quite cunning from NZ, but will pretty much start a free for all on the PI's.

If slamming the PRL for the downfall of euro and club rugby is popular on here, NZ have to take the same amount of criticism for pretty much killing off any hope PI nations have of rising to a top table.

by fa0019 Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:20 pm

changing the subject a little...

The Auckland PI team... how will this impact the blues???

Auckland is the biggest polynesian city in the world right... as in more polynesians live there then anywhere else.

If a side is drawn together for polynesians then wouldn't their support flip from the blues to the new side.... like an Irishman in london choosing whether to support LI or Harlequins... well when LI were actually in London. It would be a no brainer right?

Would you see kids like Tom Shanklin of Wales (born & brought up in London) then think "I can play in top grade PI side in Auckland, represent my people and perhaps play for my country of heritage rather than birth".

I can myself only see negative impacts for NZ... from a racial point of view also I think it would be dangerous to have one team in Auckland for Maori & Europeans and the other for those of polynesians.

I grew up in Glasgow where football is split down religious lines. Could the same occur to rugby in Auckland???

by goneagain Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:21 pm

butterfingers wrote:
Ring fenced, as in short term solution to aid a group of islands who produce exceptional talent but cannot afford to sustain their player base. And I stipulated juniors only.

I still think you are confused about who these players are. As has been pointed out many times, the vast majority of PI ABs were either born in NZ or emigrated as young children with their families. It helps if you understand the dynamics of NZ/PI population and migration patterns. So then forcing young men who have grown up in NZ to only play for a country they possibly have never been over the country they call home is completely unfair and unworkable.

butterfingers wrote:
It's such a shame your view is to screw as many small nations as you can to keep top of the pile, you sound like a multi billion pound burger franchise telling a small scottish farmer to take the Mc out of his farms name because it effects their brand!!!

That's quite funny. Ridiculous, but funny.

by goneagain Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:26 pm

butterfingers wrote:
I see so NZ get the cream and whatever is left over is up for grabs, how immensely generous of you!

I'm actually trying to agree with you on this point. I think it is important that players represent their native lands (or adopted if it wasn't purely to play rugby - see my Flutey ref earlier.) But the fact is many PI eligible players are NZers. So the good portion of 'the cream of the crop' is available to ABs already.

by goneagain Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:33 pm

fa0019 wrote:

I can myself only see negative impacts for NZ... from a racial point of view also I think it would be dangerous to have one team in Auckland for Maori & Europeans and the other for those of polynesians.

I grew up in Glasgow where football is split down religious lines. Could the same occur to rugby in Auckland???

I can't see how Akl or other NZ franchises could be banned from selecting any player they wanted. I can't imagine the ethnic makeup of the Akl franchise would change much, especially if the PI franchise is based on PI-only eligible players. That's the big question for me, how do you determine who this new team can select.

by **Biltong** Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:36 pm

goneagain wrote:
fa0019 wrote:

I can myself only see negative impacts for NZ... from a racial point of view also I think it would be dangerous to have one team in Auckland for Maori & Europeans and the other for those of polynesians.

I grew up in Glasgow where football is split down religious lines. Could the same occur to rugby in Auckland???
I can't see how Akl or other NZ franchises could be banned from selecting any player they wanted. I can't imagine the ethnic makeup of the Akl franchise would change much, especially if the PI franchise is based on PI-only eligible players. That's the big question for me, how do you determine who this new team can select.

The way I see you can solve this problem is relatively simple.

A player that wants to play for the PI team has to indicate his intentions to play for his PI country.

This way NZRU are exempted from selecting them.

by goneagain Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:42 pm

That would be a big call. Legal challenge, anyone?

by **Biltong** Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:45 pm

Well, think about it, the PI Super rugby team is supposed to be to their benefit.

hence the players coming out of that system should play for them.

by goneagain Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:53 pm

That sounds reasonable.

by lostinwales Wed 02 Oct 2013, 1:57 pm

Surely the biggest reasons for PI nations being held back is the nature of their economies and very often the quality of the governance of their unions. They are difficult to get to and their local market doesnt generate money.

They seem to be genetically designed to play rugby. We cannot and should not stop them going abroad to make the most of their skills.

They are likely to always be a special case and there should be (and are to some degree) special dispensations in place to enable them to raise decent national teams.

by fa0019 Wed 02 Oct 2013, 3:18 pm

my issue isn't for the players.. its the fans.

You'll probably start to see the polynesian blues fans start to change support to that of the PI side.... it would be natural.

It would get to a point eventually where those supporting the PI team would be PI heritage people only and the blues would be the rest... i.e. Maori and Europeans.

I have no idea on the racial harmony in NZ between the various groups but its certainly not healthy for splits to be made down these lines on sport.... one that is seen as very important within the country.

If you look at the glasgow celtic - rangers example.... Glasgow Celtic was created as a club primarily for those of Irish heritage. Rangers, who became the other dominant club in Glasgow over the course of the 20th century took in all the rest and it built a troublesome scenario which is still obvious to many (albeit not like it was).

by butterfingers Wed 02 Oct 2013, 5:45 pm

I'm hardly confused, migration patterns are a way of the world, and traditionally migration patterns have benefited NZ handsomely over many years, now other nations are starting to impose themselves on this ethnicity NZ start to promote a mercifull 'come play in NZ we will help you' attitude?

No the NZRU see other nations starting to squeeze in on what has been near exclusively their beneficiary for years, and are trying to counter it by providing an even more obvious attraction to PI players!

And lets be clear, NZ have benefited for years, the fact other nations now want in is why this idea has come about, I am not criticising NZ only, but any other union/league that attracts these players in order to lure them to switch allegiances.

Therefore this idea will start an 'open season' on PI players

by butterfingers Wed 02 Oct 2013, 5:49 pm

We could also put the same criticism on the IRFU who are using young SA players as 'project players'!

by goneagain Wed 02 Oct 2013, 5:58 pm

I still think you are missing the point. I would say that the families of these children, because they are mostly children, who grow up to be adult NZers that are greater beneficiaries of the PI to NZ migration.

The wholesale combing of the islands for talented, established players is a myth. As your continued inability provide examples shows.

by GloriousEmpire Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:08 pm

fa0019 wrote:changing the subject a little...

The Auckland PI team... how will this impact the blues???

Auckland is the biggest polynesian city in the world right... as in more polynesians live there then anywhere else.

If a side is drawn together for polynesians then wouldn't their support flip from the blues to the new side.... like an Irishman in london choosing whether to support LI or Harlequins... well when LI were actually in London. It would be a no brainer right?

Would you see kids like Tom Shanklin of Wales (born & brought up in London) then think "I can play in top grade PI side in Auckland, represent my people and perhaps play for my country of heritage rather than birth".
I can myself only see negative impacts for NZ... from a racial point of view also I think it would be dangerous to have one team in Auckland for Maori & Europeans and the other for those of polynesians.

I grew up in Glasgow where football is split down religious lines. Could the same occur to rugby in Auckland???

Nah. Aucklanders barely support the blues as it is. There will merely be two barely supported teams instead of one.

by butterfingers Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:10 pm

goneagain wrote:I still think you are missing the point. I would say that the families of these children, because they are mostly children, who grow up to be adult NZers that are greater beneficiaries of the PI to NZ migration.

The wholesale combing of the islands for talented, established players is a myth. As your continued inability provide examples shows.

There are literally hundreds of examples of NZ schools using scholarships to attract players, but that isn't the fault of the NZRU. The fact Wales, England, France and Aus now all have th odd PI heritaged player highlights that migration patterns are no longer 100% in favour of NZ, how can you not agree NZ rugby has benefited massively and far more than any other nation off PI heritage?

The point I'm making is anti this new idea, not anti NZ, the fact that NZ's grip on the PI heritage players has loosened and now, of all times, and in all of the ways they could aid the PI's they chose this? I'm saying this is an awfull, self servant idea that will damage the PI nations! Do you not agree?

by LeinsterFan4life Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:12 pm

lostinwales wrote:Surely the biggest reasons for PI nations being held back is the nature of their economies and very often the quality of the governance of their unions. They are difficult to get to and their local market doesnt generate money.

They seem to be genetically designed to play rugby. We cannot and should not stop them going abroad to make the most of their skills.

They are likely to always be a special case and there should be (and are to some degree) special dispensations in place to enable them to raise decent national teams.

I think its safe to say that the PI nations will never get to reach their full potential for a number of reasons. But the one thing I would like to see is their best players playing for their international team.

by goneagain Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:33 pm

butterfingers wrote:There are literally hundreds of examples of NZ schools using scholarships to attract players, but that isn't the fault of the NZRU.

Any yet you still can't tell me the names of any that have gone on to represent the All Blacks.

butterfingers wrote:The fact Wales, England, France and Aus now all have th odd PI heritaged player highlights that migration patterns are no longer 100% in favour of NZ, how can you not agree NZ rugby has benefited massively and far more than any other nation off PI heritage?

Again, it is the families and children who are the main beneficiaries. If the likes of Uk and France are willing to welcome PI families who are looking to work hard and improve the prospects of their families then they are to be applauded. As was mentioned earlier, the Hartleys, Tuilagis, Faletaus etc of this world are perfectly entitled to play for whatever team they feel an affinity for.
The converse case can also be made, how many NZ born/raised/developed players have represented the islands? According to wikipedia half of Samo'as current squad ar NZers.
Samoa squad 2013

butterfingers wrote:The point I'm making is anti this new idea, not anti NZ, the fact that NZ's grip on the PI heritage players has loosened and now, of all times, and in all of the ways they could aid the PI's they chose this? I'm saying this is an awfull, self servant idea that will damage the PI nations! Do you not agree?

Having had a quick search of the SANZAR/SuperRugby website, I can't see any mention of the proposal or who is suggesting it. So it's a bit difficult to comment on their motivation.

I do agree that things aren't ideal, and that more should be done to help develop talent in and for these countries, but the constant painting of NZ as some kind of Pacific region, rugby child-catcher type character is a ridiculous caricature espoused and repeated by uninformed, sensasionalists.

by butterfingers Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:38 pm

If the likes of Uk and France are willing to welcome PI families who are looking to work hard and improve the prospects of their families then they are to be applauded

This is the key sentence right here! Is this suposed PI super franchise welcoming PI families for a better way of life, or attracting players to live, play in NZ and become NZ qualified?

Welcoming migrants into a country is one thing, setting up acadamies ala the French, super franchises ala NZ and actively seeking young children and families to serve a purpose is not welcoming, it's targeting and thats what this idea is, targetting PI players and trying to keep control of what has been a very lucrative player base for NZ.

by GloriousEmpire Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:39 pm

100% of Samoan players in the last RWC were NZ born. The other PI nations weren't far behind.

NZ does far more to help and "develop" PI nations than any other country does for any other group or individual country.

Unfortunately some are still stuck believing a sucker line that used to be drawn by ridiculous uninformed right wing British gutter trash press.

by goneagain Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:39 pm

Just found some newspaper articles quoting Steve Tew, talking about the possible expansion. He mentions Argentina and Japan, but nothing about PIs.

Is GE having a cheeky wind-up?

by Taylorman Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:39 pm

butterfingers wrote:
goneagain wrote:I still think you are missing the point. I would say that the families of these children, because they are mostly children, who grow up to be adult NZers that are greater beneficiaries of the PI to NZ migration.

The wholesale combing of the islands for talented, established players is a myth. As your continued inability provide examples shows.
There are literally hundreds of examples of NZ schools using scholarships to attract players, but that isn't the fault of the NZRU. The fact Wales, England, France and Aus now all have th odd PI heritaged player highlights that migration patterns are no longer 100% in favour of NZ, how can you not agree NZ rugby has benefited massively and far more than any other nation off PI heritage?

The point I'm making is anti this new idea, not anti NZ, the fact that NZ's grip on the PI heritage players has loosened and now, of all times, and in all of the ways they could aid the PI's they chose this? I'm saying this is an awfull, self servant idea that will damage the PI nations! Do you not agree?

Name one? One scholarship that directly targets PI players either from the Islands or from within NZ specifically.
NZ rugby has never targetted the Islands for its players. There was a huge influx in the 60's and 70's into NZ by PI's looking for a better way of life and NZ accommodated that. Rugby suited the PI concept of strong family yies and their physical make up. Thats it. After that we now have second and third generation NZers where the parents or grandparents first migrated here, plus others who continue to migrate for the same reasons or to reunify with families that already live here.

NZ rugby has been the benefactor of this for sure but someone had to be, and we were closest. And there are swings and roundabouts here where the PI contribution to NZ's socio economic make up isnt over significant in comparison to the NZ population in general but that will improve as education and conditions become part and parcel of the way of life here.

by GloriousEmpire Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:40 pm

http://nzh.tw/11133135

by butterfingers Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:43 pm

'NZ rugby has been the benefactor of this for sure but someone had to be, and we were closest.'

Were, the world has become a far smaller place and PI families find it easier to travel further abroad, the Tuilagi's were all attracted by English, French money, and now Manu can turn out for England, similarly the Vunipola's and Falatau.

NZ is losing the player base it benefited from for years, France want in, and other nations are prospering, that's why this idea of a PI super franchise is so ropy looking, an actual attempt by the NZRU to attract the PI player base traffic back to them instead of elsewhere?

by GloriousEmpire Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:44 pm

Samoa was an NZ protectorate until some time in the 60's. They used the NZ dollar and were not a whole lot less than an off shore province. This is where the blurry relationship originates. NZ and Samoa are incredibly closely aligned historically, economically, politically. It's be like if Cornwall declared independence again and you expected no one from the south west to ever player rugby for England.

by goneagain Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:45 pm

Sorry to doubt you GE. Although that is contrary to what the powerbrokers were saying at the beginning of the year.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/8229063/Pacific-Islands-unlikely-for-Super-expansion

by Taylorman Wed 02 Oct 2013, 6:54 pm

butterfingers wrote:'NZ rugby has been the benefactor of this for sure but someone had to be, and we were closest.'

Were, the world has become a far smaller place and PI families find it easier to travel further abroad, the Tuilagi's were all attracted by English, French money, and now Manu can turn out for England, similarly the Vunipola's and Falatau.

NZ is losing the player base it benefited from for years, France want in, and other nations are prospering, that's why this idea of a PI super franchise is so ropy looking, an actual attempt by the NZRU to attract the PI player base traffic back to them instead of elsewhere?

No chance of that happening in any large scale. Manu is only there because of his brothers. You obviously havnt been to South Auckland to see the sheer size of the PI community by far the biggest in the world, including the PI themselves. And they wouldnt take to the cold very easily either. A samoan in snow was once a very odd sight indeed perhaps less so now. Sure there might be the odd few but there will never be a population base in the NH of any size purely for rugby reasons. Here its not about rugby but life in general.

by GloriousEmpire Wed 02 Oct 2013, 7:54 pm

Lucky NZ will have a host of PI players, visas approved, available for scrutiny and immediate selection having met the criteria if playing super rugby in NZ. What a stroke of genius!!!

by butterfingers Wed 02 Oct 2013, 7:56 pm

Taylorman wrote:
butterfingers wrote:'NZ rugby has been the benefactor of this for sure but someone had to be, and we were closest.'

Were, the world has become a far smaller place and PI families find it easier to travel further abroad, the Tuilagi's were all attracted by English, French money, and now Manu can turn out for England, similarly the Vunipola's and Falatau.

NZ is losing the player base it benefited from for years, France want in, and other nations are prospering, that's why this idea of a PI super franchise is so ropy looking, an actual attempt by the NZRU to attract the PI player base traffic back to them instead of elsewhere?
No chance of that happening in any large scale. Manu is only there because of his brothers. You obviously havnt been to South Auckland to see the sheer size of the PI community by far the biggest in the world, including the PI themselves. And they wouldnt take to the cold very easily either. A samoan in snow was once a very odd sight indeed perhaps less so now. Sure there might be the odd few but there will never be a population base in the NH of any size purely for rugby reasons. Here its not about rugby but life in general.

Similarly there are more Irish people in the 'us than there is in Ireland, infact there are reported 70 million Irish people in the US!

But alas, we must allow NZ to keep hold of their grip on PI players as they wouldn't like the cold, with logic like that who needs reason?!

Manu is there because his brothers were lured away by money, as have literally hundreds of PI players, and with France and many other nations now recognising the physiological advantages PI players have, the drain on the PI's will become worse than ever. If they are ever to get a foot hold on the world stage they need ring fencing, and to be allowed to sustain their own player base (granted not very likely with their unions etc)

Please somebody head my point, this is a stepping stone on attraction of player base far beyond anything else seen in the game before, in the past PI players naturally migrated to NZ, but that has stemed a touch in recent years due to the globalisation of most countries, and other nations looking to gain from the same player pool. This has moved to 'we don't pinch players, we welcome them' to 'ye whatever everyone else is doing it this is how we will' and thats dangerous for the sport in general.

And once again this isn't anti NZ, it's similar with the IRFU's 'project player' idea, and France scout tactics.

by Guest Wed 02 Oct 2013, 9:46 pm

You summed it up butters, NH are enticing PI players and their families over to NH countries just to benefit from their rugby skills and power. This doesn't happen in NZ or ever has. That is the take home message that others have clearly spelt out above. Some get it, some don't.

by butterfingers Wed 02 Oct 2013, 10:28 pm

ebop wrote:You summed it up butters, NH are enticing PI players and their families over to NH countries just to benefit from their rugby skills and power. This doesn't happen in NZ or ever has. That is the take home message that others have clearly spelt out above. Some get it, some don't.

Enticing and benefiting are 2 different things, NZ has certainly benefitted over the years, and now your right NH teams are looking to entice players, which I think is wrong, hence why I am so against this clearly selfish idea of a PI team playing super rugby based in NZ. It screams 'don't touch our player pool' but is actually opening up the PI's to all and sundry!

by Guest Wed 02 Oct 2013, 10:50 pm

I wholeheartedly agree with you butters that NZ rugby has benefited greatly from rugby players of PI heritage that are born in NZ and are thus NZ citizens.

I think you misunderstand why the team would be based in Auckland. I doubt it is to ring fence PI players under NZ jurisdiction. We don't need to do this. As others with an informed knowledge of the islands' infrastructure and economy have said, it is most likely for 'logistical' and 'economical' reasons.

I think you'll find that a player of PI heritage born and raised in NZ but playing for this new PI super rugby team is more than capable of choosing what national umbrella he'd like to play under. The NZRU would not hold a gun to their head I'm sure. There are plenty of examples of NZ eligible players that learnt their skills in NZ but decide to play for their parents' homeland. Who wins in this case? PI rugby. We don't cry about how we lose NZ'ers to Samoa, it's awesome, because if it means that they're stronger and can tip over tier 1 teams (which everyone wants), then I'm glad NZ rugby helped.

Sounds like you're more concerned with NZ rugby cherry picking the cream of the crop. Well, if they're NZ born or raised up here and they want to play for NZ, then that is that players and NZ rugby's god given right, right?

Thing is, don't be bitter that NZ is a pacific island and has a history of welcoming Pacific Islanders into our country for reasons other than rugby, which is a far cry from what's happening in the NH.

by Guest Thu 03 Oct 2013, 12:47 am

"Idiot"

ps. Not you butters

by GloriousEmpire Thu 03 Oct 2013, 6:58 am

Tusi Pisi.

Born Samoa. Learned his rugby in NZ. Developed through north harbour and the crusaders...played for Samoa when he probably would've been picked for NZ during the fly half crisis. Leveraged that playing in France and Japan for his fortune.

Just sounds like a talented young chap making the most if his life. Hard to see the NZRU as some Orwellian child snatcher if that stuff is going on.

by blackcanelion Thu 03 Oct 2013, 7:10 am

It's irritating that the myth of whole sale trawling of PI talent by NZ keeps coming up. Especially when it's relatively easy to debunk. I guess I'd put it down to sensationalist journalism, entrenched views and hyperbole.

I'm not suggesting that PI players don't come to school or to work. However, the insinuation is that large numbers of players come here, are creamed off into the AB's and the rest released back to their own countries.

As GE pointed out. NZ and W Samoa have an intertwined history. NZ occupied and ran what was German Samoa for the British Government in WW1 until just after WW2. They introduced rugby into the Islands. Court ruling meant anyone who's parents where born in Samoa prior to independence (1949) is effectively a NZ'er. Hence when relatively cheap long distance flights became common in the 70's we had mass migration.

Our school systems have always been connected. Catholic Samoans have always come to Wesley college in South Auckland. It's essentially part of the missionary service. The Marist brothers have schools in Tonga, Samoa and Fiji; and given the number of NZ members of the clergy, it's no surprise development of rugby in all three nations is tied to NZ.

Having said that there are effectively sports scholarships to the Islands as well and the odd player has ended up playing for NZ. However, in my opinion this is overstated.

There have been 1126 All Blacks only a small percentage of them were born overseas, an even smaller percentage came here as young teenagers or older. Luckily the all blacks site list all the overseas born all blacks and it's relatively easy to check their back grounds (http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/bornoverseas.ASP?stats_ID=8).

Lets be clear we are looking at very few players who came to NZ as adults or as teenagers. Of these I think a couple (maybe 3) of Island boys have qualified for the AB's under the current regulations (i.e. came here as adults or teenagers). That's less than the number of NZ players who have qualified for England in this time for instance.

I think several things always cloud the discussion. These include:
1: the need for the British rugby media to have a bogy man.
2: the change in ethnic makeup of NZ rugby
3: the reality that if everyone who could qualify to play for an PI team did, they'd be stronger.
4: Poor research in the media
5: discussion of other NZ takes the heat of European clubs and their repeated failure to release players and any discussion of change.

NZ (and Australia) are a threat in terms of scholarship and professional contracts. But it's pretty low level compared with other drains. In my view the real issue for them in terms of NZ is trying to access NZ players with Island heritage.

I'd suggest the biggest issues for PI teams isn't so much NZ. It's European rugby Union, Australian rugby league and sevens. Don't get me me wrong NZ is an issue. The occasional player will be lost to the AB's.

They more likely to lose players to French and English clubs. Clermont for instance have set up an academy in Fiji. That's not an issue if these players are available to play for their home country. What we are seeing though is that players aren't released and increasingly lost to the system.

Australian Rugby League (and Aussie Rules) are increasingly recognising the potential talent of young players. This is probably as big a threat as European clubs. League clubs offer significantly more money than union in Australasia for junior contracts and it's closer to home, with significant local island communities.

Lastly is sevens. The sleeping giant. The Island's have a ton of talent. It's easy for national teams to bring over Island players and integrate them into their teams. This is likely to become more of an issue with the growth of the olympics and professional club tournaments. This is an area NZ has let the Islands down in. We have a number of players who in my view should be playing for Island nations.

by blackcanelion Thu 03 Oct 2013, 7:15 am

P.s. Still think it's the NZ proposal for the Islands coming through. Economics. The Islands all have very low GDP's and NZ's rugby TV is saturated. I see SANZAAR's exec has come out and said Argentina is more likely. Personally I'd like to the the islands option. My guess is that if it happens it'll be part of a potential exit/sustainability option by NZ/Australia. That's partial protection if SA leaves, tying into the Japanese market and a reduction in travel (3 local conferences). I'm guessing economics will dictate Auckland as a base.

by rainbow-warrior Thu 03 Oct 2013, 8:05 am

Taylorman wrote:
butterfingers wrote:'NZ rugby has been the benefactor of this for sure but someone had to be, and we were closest.'

Were, the world has become a far smaller place and PI families find it easier to travel further abroad, the Tuilagi's were all attracted by English, French money, and now Manu can turn out for England, similarly the Vunipola's and Falatau.

NZ is losing the player base it benefited from for years, France want in, and other nations are prospering, that's why this idea of a PI super franchise is so ropy looking, an actual attempt by the NZRU to attract the PI player base traffic back to them instead of elsewhere?
No chance of that happening in any large scale. Manu is only there because of his brothers. You obviously havnt been to South Auckland to see the sheer size of the PI community by far the biggest in the world, including the PI themselves. And they wouldnt take to the cold very easily either. A samoan in snow was once a very odd sight indeed perhaps less so now. Sure there might be the odd few but there will never be a population base in the NH of any size purely for rugby reasons. Here its not about rugby but life in general.

Have you any ideal of the population of Africans, Indians, Jamaicans, Middle Easterns etc etc in the UK? Quite a daft thing to believe that Samoans could not cope. If the buck is bigger then they will go to the NH and the bucks will always be bigger in the NH that the SH.

I also find the way Nz'ers try and hide the poaching thing as something that's never happened. I have been told countless times it did, even Ted used to go there to poach in his early days as a master. It's like the big cover up many try when one dares to suggest that Maori were not the first in NZ when the geological evidence is all around us.

by Guest Thu 03 Oct 2013, 8:19 am

But the thing is rainbow, is that people are saying 'poaching' by NZ exists, but no one seems to be able to list any names. Please enlighten us.

by rainbow-warrior Thu 03 Oct 2013, 8:59 am

ebop wrote:But the thing is rainbow, is that people are saying 'poaching' by NZ exists, but no one seems to be able to list any names. Please enlighten us.

Collins, Sivivatu, Muliaina, Rokocoko, So'oialo, Lauaki, Masoe and Toeava all Island born to start with Smile

by No 7&1/2 Thu 03 Oct 2013, 9:04 am

Does that mean Wales are poaching players from England?! North, Cuthbert, Lydiate, JD. I'll have missed someone no doubt!

No to answer the question.

by Guest Thu 03 Oct 2013, 9:22 am

Exactly 7.5, these aren't poached players and neither are the ones you list rainbow. The term is provocative and not accurate. I know you're wumming and you know the score because you live here. Up north no less.

by **Galted** Thu 03 Oct 2013, 9:29 am

ebop wrote:But the thing is rainbow, is that people are saying 'poaching' by NZ exists, but no one seems to be able to list any names. Please enlighten us.

Conrad Smith was poached from the 1880s judging by his sideburns.

by Sponsored content