What should rugby do for the Pacific Island Nations.

BY THE NUMBERS

Professional players of Pacific Island descent:

UK & Ireland: 78
Japan: 76
Australian Super Rugby teams: 36
New Zealand Super Rugby teams: 60
NPC: 141
Italy & Romania: 9

Total: 632

Pacific Islanders playing international rugby:

Tonga: 69
Samoa: 63
Fiji: 66
New Zealand (including sevens) 40
Japan: 14
Australia: 8
England (including sevens) 5
France: 3
USA: 2
Wales: 1
Scotland: 1

Total: 272

* As of late October

All professional Island players are based overseas, and income from clubs is their livelihood. Statistics show players of Island heritage now feature on the books of virtually every major club operating in a professional environment. But to represent their country, these same players must sacrifice more than others.

Unavailability for their club means lost wages. Their absence jeopardises contract renewals. They often have to personally top-up partially IRB-funded insurance premiums - some clubs demand up to $200,000 in cover - and pay their own airfares to camps.

"It can quite often cost the player, not just in lost income but in hard cash, to play for their country," Nichol said. "That's the reality of the situation at the moment. For a number of players who are doing very well [for their clubs] the IRB cover is not enough."

When Mapusua played for London Irish he compared test earnings with his English counterparts before an international against Samoa.

"The English boys were getting £11,000 [NZ$21,608] per game," he recalls. "We were getting $1000 allowance with no bonuses or base salary."

The All Blacks, for the record, receive $7500 per week in camp.

Through the formation of PIPA, Nichol hopes to negotiate some revenue-sharing model for tests involving tier-one teams and Island nations.

Barriers don't end there, though. With limited finances resources are compromised.

"You have players going from some of the very best clubs in the world to touring with what is effectively an amateur team," Nichol said.

Lack of expertise contributes to clubs becoming frustrated at the poor condition their players can return in.

"Just getting treatment, the physio is working well into the early hours of the morning," Mapusua said. "Having the resources available, it's a massive difference coming from a club to playing for the Island teams."

Please read more

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/9462100/Mapusua-Pacific-Island-rugby-still-poor-cousin

What should rugby do for the Pacific Island Nations.

Show them how to tackle legally.

Overseas income earned by PI players is significant. Why don't some of these wealthy PI players chip in and pay for a physio that knows what they're doing.

Get tired of these articles, go live in India and then complain about things.

Back from a week away to one of these. What gets my goat is that someone will actually believe this poorly researched, misleading article. No doubt it will get dredged up as evidence in the future.

I've written another to help out.

England ripped off by the rest of the world..

Despite providing the overwhelming number of players in 6 nations, World cup, Rugby Championship, Super 15, and Heineken cup, the RFU has to split profits "evenly" with other nations.

Playing numbers with English descent
UK and Ireland 400*
South Africa 400*
Australia 100*
New Zealand 100*
Pacific Islands 50*

*All numbers completely made up and fictitious. Based on the assumption that if you have any sort of English connection you must be considered English. A English connection could be, but is not limited to the following circumstances:
a) Born in England=English,
b) Grew up in England = English,
c) Lived there for any period longer than 5 years= English
any parent or Grandparent that has done a, b or c = English
d) Anyone with a grandparent born outside of Ireland, Scotland or Wales Prior to 1946 = English
e) anyone from a former British, dominion, colony, protectorate etc that was ruled from London (including and not limited to Wales, Ireland, Scotland, France (and any current or former colonies, including Italy), USA, West Indies, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Fiji, and Samoa, Portugal (and any former colonies, including Argentina)** = English.
f) if in doubt you are probably English.

## It is important to use the widest possible interpretation when determining Englishness for this assessment. If your country has been occupied that counts forever.

As you can see I've conclusively proven that the RFU has been ripped off the what are in fact regional administrative bodies.

The logical failure in the op is the point where it says "these same players".

They're not the same players at all. Most of the 140 players (if this number is even correct) players of PI heritage are born and raised in NZ. NZ is one of the Polynesian countries and is a pacific island. (More than one pacific island).

The best thing that "rugby" could do for the PI nations is for the IRB to do as the NZRU has been campaigning for over a decade - relax the laws that constrain a player to one international side. So that guys may play for NZ and later represent Samoa or Fiji or Tonga. We've seen that most of the Samoan team that turn up for a RWC are in fact NZ born. (All of the team in 2011). But it would give yet more options if ex All Blacks with some PI heritage could turn out for their island "home" when not selected for the All Blacks.

GloriousEmpire wrote:The logical failure in the op is the point where it says "these same players".

They're not the same players at all. Most of the 140 players (if this number is even correct) players of PI heritage are born and raised in NZ. NZ is one of the Polynesian countries and is a pacific island. (More than one pacific island).

The best thing that "rugby" could do for the PI nations is for the IRB to do as the NZRU has been campaigning for over a decade - relax the laws that constrain a player to one international side. So that guys may play for NZ and later represent Samoa or Fiji or Tonga. We've seen that most of the Samoan team that turn up for a RWC are in fact NZ born. (All of the team in 2011). But it would give yet more options if ex All Blacks with some PI heritage could turn out for their island "home" when not selected for the All Blacks.

I agree with the last bit. Don't understand why players should have to turn their back all but one of their facets of identity. Why can't someone be a Samoan kiwi (I.e. Someone born and raised in New Zealand but who is proud of his Samoan side)?

The other side is that the home side needs to give the away side more money. Comfortably covering expenses. Especially the richer ones in Europe.

My understanding is that P.I.P.A. cant push for the relaxation of the qualification laws, ie tier two countries having players who have previously represented tier one nations, as that would require an amendment to IRB rules by way of a passed motion, and that can only be done by a tier one nation.

P.I.P.A. can however identify the clubs who instead of releasing Polynesian Internationals, or obstructing them from playing for their Country and take those to the IRB.

there is not much you can do about the fact that players will travel to where ever they can earn a living out of professional rugby.

What the Pacific Islands need is a higher profile international tournament.

If the RC is held bi annually, and the RWC is seen as year four of a four year cycle, then

year 1 RC
year 2 Open
year 3 RC
year 4 RWC

Year two can be turned into a full fledged SH tournament, whereby the current 4 teams of the RC plus the teams from the Pacific Nations Cup (Japan, Samoa, Fiji and Tonga) can be included into a single round robin tournament that will last 7 weeks.

If you then say this tournament is hosted by one specific country on a rotation basis and all revenue and profits split evenly amongst all teams it will provide much needed revenue to the smaller Unions.

You could incentivise the tournament by offering prize money on a depreciating scale from first to last.

Imagine if you will.

2016 is the new cycle.

So the following years you host the tournament in these nations
2017 Argentina
2021 Australia
2025 South Africa
2029 New Zealand
2033 Japan

and then it starts all over again.

It might be possible to host one event every six tournaments as a collective in the Pacific Islands, although I am not sure whether it is feasible.

The whole idea here is to remove the "glass ceiling" often spoke about, and if well marketed it could provide adequate revenue for all the participating nations.

I'm pretty sure the PI sides get more than just expenses covered when they tour the UK an Ireland, Hammer. Isn't that part of the reason they tour in the first place (to raise so funds). The All Blacks get a reported £1m when they come to Wales. I know the crowds aren't as big for other PI teams, but we don't just give them expenses. They get a % of gate receipts too.

Also, didn't the IRB bring about a return to traditional tours to the PI nations? Pretty sure that's why Scotland went to Samoa last year, Wales went to Japan and Wales are off to either Samoa or Tonga next year.

But Biltong havent the Northern hemisphere clubs already started then, how are you going to get Pacific Island players released from their contracts, there are few other issues like infrastructure etc.. I do agree the RC doesnt have to be played every year though.

aucklandlaurie wrote: But Biltong havent the Northern hemisphere clubs already started then, how are you going to get Pacific Island players released from their contracts, there are few other issues like infrastructure etc.. I do agree the RC doesnt have to be played every year though.

Laurie, if it is run during the same window as the RC then it is in the test window, which means the players must be released.

Biltong wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: But Biltong havent the Northern hemisphere clubs already started then, how are you going to get Pacific Island players released from their contracts, there are few other issues like infrastructure etc.. I do agree the RC doesnt have to be played every year though.

Laurie, if it is run during the same window as the RC then it is in the test window, which means the players must be released.

Cheers Biiltong I just wasnt sure..

Griff wrote:I'm pretty sure the PI sides get. Ore than just expenses covered when they tour the UK an Ireland, Hammer. Isn't that part of the reason they tour in the first place (to raise so funds). The All Blacks get a reported £1m when they come to Wales. I know the crowds aren't as big for other PI teams, but we don't just give them expenses. They get a % of gate receipts too.

This is 5 years old now but since this info isn't freely available it's difficult to know if it's better now or just old news.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/nov/14/autumn-internationals-walesrugbyunionteam1

The PI teams often don't meet up for the full international window because they can't afford the costs so I don't think they're making money. They need the time to build their team, which improves the team and therefore sponsorship. So money indirectly but not directly. But I'm guessing.

That article states that Canada asked Wales to pay for their flights. Not sure that's on really (us paying for them I mean). Canada are hardly a poor nation. It doesn't mention gate receipts as far as I can see, and these would be distributed after the game I expect, so effectively Canada we looking for a cash advance to pay for travel. A bit different to the PI thing, but it's still not ideal that we have nations not able to afford travel.

Didnt Wales ask Canada to pay for their flights? Canada couldnt afford it, so the IRB paid, which in effect means all the rest of us paid.

Sorry, yes you're right. Seems the top nations get their trip paid for by the host nation.

Isnt there currently rule though that if someone has only played once or twice for the AB's then he CAN swtich to Samoa / Tonga / Fiji.

Lets not forget mind...most of the Samoan team are actually born and bred Kiwis of Samoan descent.

I dont want to see loads of random nationality changing, as that could lead to it worldwide and just makes a mockery of international rugby.

The clubs need to be addressed so that they MUST make players available for international games...then there wouldnt be an issue...but of course that comes down to contracts etc..

GeordieFalcon wrote:Isnt there currently rule though that if someone has only played once or twice for the AB's then he CAN swtich to Samoa / Tonga / Fiji. Lets not forget mind...most of the Samoan team are actually born and bred Kiwis of Samoan descent.

I dont want to see loads of random nationality changing, as that could lead to it worldwide and just makes a mockery of international rugby.

The clubs need to be addressed so that they MUST make players available for international games...then there wouldnt be an issue...but of course that comes down to contracts etc..

That rule was scrapped after Michael Jones, Frank Bunce etc.


If it only applied to non tier one countries, it would hardly amount to random nationality changing.

Clubs have to release players in international windows if the player wishes to but if they are at a less well off international team they may well take the money from their day to day job rather than choose to represent their country. 1 thing they could possibly do would be to suspend the league campaigns while internationals are played as they do in football.

Or to phrase it another way, Some countries cant compete with the money that some clubs can offer foreign players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Clubs have to release players in international windows if the player wishes to but if they are at a less well off international team they may well take the money from their day to day job rather than choose to represent their country. 1 thing they could possibly do would be to suspend the league campaigns while internationals are played as they do in football.

PITA will now be investigating those situations. The IRB rules against clubs offering financial reward to prevent players from playing international rugby.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Isnt there currently rule though that if someone has only played once or twice for the AB's then he CAN swtich to Samoa / Tonga / Fiji. Lets not forget mind...most of the Samoan team are actually born and bred Kiwis of Samoan descent.

I dont want to see loads of random nationality changing, as that could lead to it worldwide and just makes a mockery of international rugby.

The clubs need to be addressed so that they MUST make players available for international games...then there wouldnt be an issue...but of course that comes down to contracts etc..

That rule was scrapped after Michael Jones, Frank Bunce etc.


 If it only applied to non tier one countries, it would hardly amount to random nationality changing.

Ah i thought it was still in play. Maybe it should be brought back. Many players get their single cap for the AB's and never play again. They are then lost to a potential Fiji, Tonga or Samoa.

Ok maybe your right...non tier 1 sides...

maestegmafia wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Clubs have to release players in international windows if the player wishes to but if they are at a less well off international team they may well take the money from their day to day job rather than choose to represent their country. 1 thing they could possibly do would be to suspend the league campaigns while internationals are played as they do in football.

PITA will now be investigating those situations. The IRB rules against clubs offering financial reward to prevent players from playing international rugby.

But it relates to the wages playes are getting. When you sign if you think you stand a better chance of getting a contract if you choose not to represent your country you may well be tempted (doesn't count if you are exceptional like G North as you have more options). that's not financial reward but wages. Unless we're saying they can't be paid during international periods which makes the problem worse.

Griff wrote:That article states that Canada asked Wales to pay for their flights. Not sure that's on really (us paying for them I mean). Canada are hardly a poor nation. It doesn't mention gate receipts as far as  I can see, and these would be distributed after the game I expect, so effectively Canada we looking for a cash advance to pay for travel. A bit different to the PI thing, but it's still not ideal that we have nations not able to afford travel.

The away side get none of the gate receipts as standard. The IRB regulations state that any payment to the away side has to be agreed at least a month before the game. The only reason the Australians, All Blacks, etc are given extra money is to tempt them in as they can only play so many games but they bring the big crowds. I doubt if Canada (or any of the PI) are give anything other than expenses (from anyone). The article above suggests that the CRU didn't even get that in 2008.

The whole situation needs addressing. Interesting reading posts from blokes of different nationalities assuming different areas of what is a large problem.

The fact is that the Polynesian Pacific Islands have made some of the most naturally gifted rugby players we have seen in the game and we want international rugby to be a larger sport.

We don't just want fourteen teams at the RWC most of which are patched together, we want 30 - 40 nations trying to qualify for 20 spots. we want good competition and a great RWC.

An accord could be drawn by the IRB that the leading wealthier nations, for example that all top ten in the Rankings in particular the Six Nations and Rugby Championship team, all have to play at least one Nation from outside the top ten in a meaningful international each season to help that nation raise revenue.

HammerofThunor wrote:The article above suggests that the CRU didn't even get that in 2008.

It also states that the PI teams didn't get that either, this is a problem all nations could help to deal with not just one or two.

"When the Pacific Islanders played England at Twickenham last week, their pleas for financial aid also went unanswered."

This correction was published on Friday November 14 2008.

We were wrong to say that when the Pacific Islanders played England at Twickenham last week, their pleas for additional financial aid went unanswered. They received £75,000 from the Rugby Football Union for their tour expenses.

Edit: Still not enough IMO.

HammerofThunor wrote:Edit: Still not enough IMO.

Not compared to ten times that amount that the Ozzies just left Cardiff with. All Blacks would have received similar if not more in Dublin and Twickenham previously likewise SA.

Fair play to the Aussies they have played Samoa and Tonga recently, SA invited Samoa to their tournament in SA last summer. New Zealand only ever have played Samoa and Fiji five times, the last time was when Samoa toured NZ in 2008 they last played Tonga at a RWC in 2011 and Fiji, considering how closely linked the populations are this is awful Scotland have played both sides more often.

The current IRB touring schedule is in the NH autumn the rest of the world tour Europe. In the NH summer Europe tour the rest of the world. There is no window for NZ to play the PI. In the same way there is no window for England to play Georgia or Wales to play Russia. They sometimes happen because no-one else is playing but it's not part of the touring schedule the IRB have set up.

The European teams should tour the PI, like Scotland did. The best thing the All Blacks can do (in the current IRB international game framework) is host games for the PI teams in New Zealand, with it counting as the PI's home game and them taking the gate money (similar to the Argentina v England game in 2009 at Old Trafford).

The problem is that the pacific Islands teams are quite unique in that home internationals aren’t really a viable proposition at this stage and that is where unions make their money.  I don’t know enough about investment in any of these areas but surely the plan needs to be to either work towards making them a viable option or finding a solution to the problem.  No one can plan a future based on hand outs and I’d imagine as proud nations they wouldn’t want to either.

Does anyone know what the administration is like looking after these teams?  Do they have anyone with enough vision to try and come up with commercial solutions?  Would hosting ‘home’ internationals in other countries during the windows be an option?  There are plenty of facilities throughout the world that could be made available I’m sure.  Doesn’t necessarily have to be full international sides to generate a bit of profit either.  The A sides during six nations times seem to be struggling for fixtures.  If Samoa and Fiji were to take part in that I could see them becoming a pretty good draw for example and a great benefit for our developing sides.  Anyway the point is there needs to be workable solution to this problem and there needs to be a creative solution to solve it.

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Edit: Still not enough IMO.

Not compared to ten times that amount that the Ozzies just left Cardiff with. All Blacks would have received similar if not more in Dublin and Twickenham previously likewise SA.

Fair play to the Aussies they have played Samoa and Tonga recently, SA invited Samoa to their tournament in SA last summer. New Zealand only ever have played Samoa and Fiji five times, the last time was when Samoa toured NZ in 2008 they last played Tonga at a RWC in 2011 and Fiji, considering how closely linked the populations are this is awful Scotland have played both sides more often.

 Dont tick us off as awful, we do a lot towards Pacific Island Rugby its just not in the shape of playing games against them. In fact this whole article arises out of the representations to the IRB by PIPA which is an intitive launched by the the NZRPA and supported by the NZRU.

Toadfish wrote:The problem is that the pacific Islands teams are quite unique in that home internationals aren’t really a viable proposition at this stage and that is where unions make their money.  I don’t know enough about investment in any of these areas but surely the plan needs to be to either work towards making them a viable option or finding a solution to the problem.  No one can plan a future based on hand outs and I’d imagine as proud nations they wouldn’t want to either.

Does anyone know what the administration is like looking after these teams?  Do they have anyone with enough vision to try and come up with commercial solutions?  Would hosting ‘home’ internationals in other countries during the windows be an option?  There are plenty of facilities throughout the world that could be made available I’m sure.  Doesn’t necessarily have to be full international sides to generate a bit of profit either.  The A sides during six nations times seem to be struggling for fixtures.  If Samoa and Fiji were to take part in that I could see them becoming a pretty good draw for example and a great benefit for our developing sides.  Anyway the point is there needs to be workable solution to this problem and there needs to be a creative solution to solve it.

The PNC is the current international window for the PI sides. So they can't be released during the 6 nations as well (well they could but then they're even these attractive for teams and either fewer will be playing domestic rugby or more will retire from international rugby.

Basically someone is going to have to give up money for more to go to the PI teams. I liked the Quad cup in South Africa this year. Problem is it generates less money for the home nation than a normal tour would. It's not like New Zealand and Australia don't have their own financial issues.

Starting point is a reasonable minimum match fee for the away side.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Edit: Still not enough IMO.

Not compared to ten times that amount that the Ozzies just left Cardiff with. All Blacks would have received similar if not more in Dublin and Twickenham previously likewise SA.

Fair play to the Aussies they have played Samoa and Tonga recently, SA invited Samoa to their tournament in SA last summer. New Zealand only ever have played Samoa and Fiji five times, the last time was when Samoa toured NZ in 2008 they last played Tonga at a RWC in 2011 and Fiji, considering how closely linked the populations are this is awful Scotland have played both sides more often.

 Dont tick us off as awful, we do a lot towards Pacific Island Rugby its just not in the shape of playing games against them. In fact this whole article arises out of the representations to the IRB by PIPA which is an intitive launched by the the NZRPA and supported by the NZRU.

You could play them in a test match once in a while? Everyone else does. Everyone is also at blame for not doing enough to stop these nations struggling to field decent teams in high profile games. It is as though collectively we want to suppress their chances of doing well.

I am interested to know what is it that NZ does do that means they are doing enough for those PI nations that means they don't have to play them...?

maestegmafia wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Edit: Still not enough IMO.

Not compared to ten times that amount that the Ozzies just left Cardiff with. All Blacks would have received similar if not more in Dublin and Twickenham previously likewise SA.

Fair play to the Aussies they have played Samoa and Tonga recently, SA invited Samoa to their tournament in SA last summer. New Zealand only ever have played Samoa and Fiji five times, the last time was when Samoa toured NZ in 2008 they last played Tonga at a RWC in 2011 and Fiji, considering how closely linked the populations are this is awful Scotland have played both sides more often.

 Dont tick us off as awful, we do a lot towards Pacific Island Rugby its just not in the shape of playing games against them. In fact this whole article arises out of the representations to the IRB by PIPA which is an intitive launched by the the NZRPA and supported by the NZRU.

You could play them in a test match once in a while? Everyone else does. Everyone is also at blame for not doing enough to stop these nations struggling to field decent teams in high profile games. It is as though collectively we want to suppress their chances of doing well.

I am interested to know what is it that NZ does do that means they are doing enough for those PI nations that means they don't have to play them...?

 
* NZ regularly play other pacific islands in the pacific nations cup either via the vehicle of the Junior All Blacks, or the Maori All Blacks http://www.irb.com/pacificnationscup/index.html.
* NZ born players comprised the entire Samoan team to the last RWC.
* Michael Fay (A New Zealander) funded Samoa since 1996.
* David Richwhite (A New Zealander) also funded Samoa since 1996.
* New Zealanders Bryan Williams, Pat Lam and Michael Jones have all coached Samoa
 
Anything else you need on that front?
 
Now what exactly have Wales or England done for Portugal?
 
____
But rather than start pointing the finger. Looking at this situation in detail.
 
Samoan rugby is funded primarily by four sources of revenue.
 
1. IRB Grants
2. Government Grants
3. Sponsorship
4. Private Donations.
 
Gate revenues do not really feature in the Samoan rugby financial landscape.
 
Samoan Rugby is currently about $109k in debt, which has come about because of a poor 2012.
 
The major contributing factor to the loss was
 
Decreases is Revenue
 
* $1M drop in government funding
* $700k drop in private donations
* $500k in corporate donations
* $500k year on year loss of one-off RWC revenue from 2011.
 
Increases in Costs
 
* $1.5M paid out in costs incurred to host Scotland.  
 
(Worth mentioning that their principal sponsor the Samoan International Finance Authority increased their sponsorship value by around $900k+)
 
So looks to me like more international sides touring Samoa will just incur them greater costs and put a greater demand on their finances, rather than helping them out financially, unless the IRB change the rules on touring costs.

We played them with the Saxons a few years ago. Jordan Crane played lock. All I remember

Question.... why should unions of foreign nations be indebted to PI nations?

Rugby is a professional sport. Its a business. Clubs are private entities who employ players and pay their salaries. This is an agreement made by the player and the club. It has nothing to do with the union.

How about the number of South Africans in Europe. South Africans provide more players then any other rugby nation in the Top14, AP & Rabo combined (outside of the indigenous players of course).... should SA get financial assistance too because they are improving the leagues like PI players do?

How many South Africans have played for European test teams?

Catt, Stevens, Abbott, Fourie, Botha, Barritt, Strauss, Luscombe, De Villers, Claassen, Geldenhuys and I'm sure their are others.

Then you have CJ Stander, Josh Strauss, WP Nel, Hanno Dirksen, & Rory Kockott soon to be capped once their residency order has been completed.

Surely by that case the unions owe South Africa as much as they owe the PI, if not more.... but I doubt anyone will say we require any funding as we can afford the losses right? Not so when we're losing players left right and centre as they are given the choice of springbok selection or securing their families future.... many are choosing the latter.

The best stay sure but guys like Rory Kockott who are slow burners are saying well I didn't make it in the first 2 seasons, oh well lets simply jump on the gravy train... had he stayed in SA he would have been a bok by now.

I do agree though that countries that can't afford basics should be helped by the IRB. Things like expenses, flights, meals, kit should all be covered.

But rugby players can't say... oh england have the best facilities etc, its not fair.. well thats them not us etc. Are you going to trade in your kids because your mates have ones who are taller, smarter etc??? Have some pride in your own nation, your own people, your own family.

I no longer have to travel budget airlines, stay in dens when abroad etc but if I come back to the UK and go away with the boys on a wknd I accept that some can't afford the more expensive things.... do I cut them out, no because they're my mates and what fun would I have on my own. All I'm saying is that you have to accept the environment you're in.

Its different if a union is withholding cash or spending it on excess etc.

But few unions are flush... 1 or 2 are, thats it. Say England spends huge sums in marketing, getting kids into the sport etc... they have invested in their future, why should they have to hand over their dividends to someone else who isn't bothered as much.
If they have to hand over funds, what incentives do these firms have to do their own marketing, promotions, investments?

There needs to be a balance but simply opening up the cheque book is perhaps not one of them.

Clubs should release them for international games and promote them to make the international teams. Its sad that fiji stuggled to get a bench together for the babas game and in previous world cups pacific island boys have been pressured by clubs into opting out of the team.

Are the PI players who are pressurised being singled out by clubs or does it happen to chaps from other nations too?

Isn't it that they have signed more generous contracts which means they would be expected to play for their clubs.

I.e. you can have 150k a year if you are available for all games for your club irrespective of test callups... or you have 100k a year and you are only available for games when not with the national team?

Not saying its one or the other, rather are the clubs really all evil or is the issue that they have paid a premium to these players? Isn't it so that foreigners in the AP are paid better then English players in some cases because the foreigners are mostly retired and will be available for all games when fit???

GloriousEmpire wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Edit: Still not enough IMO.

Not compared to ten times that amount that the Ozzies just left Cardiff with. All Blacks would have received similar if not more in Dublin and Twickenham previously likewise SA.

Fair play to the Aussies they have played Samoa and Tonga recently, SA invited Samoa to their tournament in SA last summer. New Zealand only ever have played Samoa and Fiji five times, the last time was when Samoa toured NZ in 2008 they last played Tonga at a RWC in 2011 and Fiji, considering how closely linked the populations are this is awful Scotland have played both sides more often.

 Dont tick us off as awful, we do a lot towards Pacific Island Rugby its just not in the shape of playing games against them. In fact this whole article arises out of the representations to the IRB by PIPA which is an intitive launched by the the NZRPA and supported by the NZRU.

You could play them in a test match once in a while? Everyone else does. Everyone is also at blame for not doing enough to stop these nations struggling to field decent teams in high profile games. It is as though collectively we want to suppress their chances of doing well.

I am interested to know what is it that NZ does do that means they are doing enough for those PI nations that means they don't have to play them...?

 
* NZ regularly play other pacific islands in the pacific nations cup either via the vehicle of the Junior All Blacks, or the Maori All Blacks http://www.irb.com/pacificnationscup/index.html.
* NZ born players comprised the entire Samoan team to the last RWC.
* Michael Fay (A New Zealander) funded Samoa since 1996.
* David Richwhite (A New Zealander) also funded Samoa since 1996.
* New Zealanders Bryan Williams, Pat Lam and Michael Jones have all coached Samoa
 
Anything else you need on that front?
 
Now what exactly have Wales or England done for Portugal?
 
____
But rather than start pointing the finger. Looking at this situation in detail.
 
Samoan rugby is funded primarily by four sources of revenue.
 
1. IRB Grants
2. Government Grants
3. Sponsorship
4. Private Donations.
 
Gate revenues do not really feature in the Samoan rugby financial landscape.
 
Samoan Rugby is currently about $109k in debt, which has come about because of a poor 2012.
 
The major contributing factor to the loss was
 
Decreases is Revenue
 
* $1M drop in government funding
* $700k drop in private donations
* $500k in corporate donations
* $500k year on year loss of one-off RWC revenue from 2011.
 
Increases in Costs
 
* $1.5M paid out in costs incurred to host Scotland.  
 
(Worth mentioning that their principal sponsor the Samoan International Finance Authority increased their sponsorship value by around $900k+)
 
So looks to me like more international sides touring Samoa will just incur them greater costs and put a greater demand on their finances, rather than helping them out financially, unless the IRB change the rules on touring costs.

I'm pointing the finger at everyone saying we need to secure a relevant future for these nations. Lower ranked European nations included. Thirty years ago Romania nearly beat the All Blacks, that wouldn't happen now that the gulf between the cream has risen.

Romania in the 80s were almost professional. The government heavily funded their game and they batted well above their weight against nations with bigger and better but amateur set ups.

When the regime was toppled normality resumed... in the end they have only 10K players within the country. Italy who was seen as a major rival in the 80s has 70K players. They can't compete with such low interest in the sport.

Its like saying East Germans are good at athletics and swimming because of all the medals they won  in the 80s.... and ignoring that it was all due to steroid abuse.

I understand what you're saying but countries with low playing numbers regardless of wealth will never be able to support itself and shouldn't be seen as a priority. Look to nations such as as the US with 250k players... ok many come late into the sport but its a start, they have interest and should be seen as a far higher priority then Romania. The next stage would be getting the sport into schools which will build interest... but it is I admit a difficult task with American football, basketball, baseball etc already well established.

I think it's USA that should be aggrieved by the potential loss of Hanno Dirksen to Wales, not SA, Fa. 

maestegmafia wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Edit: Still not enough IMO.

Not compared to ten times that amount that the Ozzies just left Cardiff with. All Blacks would have received similar if not more in Dublin and Twickenham previously likewise SA.

Fair play to the Aussies they have played Samoa and Tonga recently, SA invited Samoa to their tournament in SA last summer. New Zealand only ever have played Samoa and Fiji five times, the last time was when Samoa toured NZ in 2008 they last played Tonga at a RWC in 2011 and Fiji, considering how closely linked the populations are this is awful Scotland have played both sides more often.

 Dont tick us off as awful, we do a lot towards Pacific Island Rugby its just not in the shape of playing games against them. In fact this whole article arises out of the representations to the IRB by PIPA which is an intitive launched by the the NZRPA and supported by the NZRU.

You could play them in a test match once in a while? Everyone else does. Everyone is also at blame for not doing enough to stop these nations struggling to field decent teams in high profile games. It is as though collectively we want to suppress their chances of doing well.

I am interested to know what is it that NZ does do that means they are doing enough for those PI nations that means they don't have to play them...?

 
* NZ regularly play other pacific islands in the pacific nations cup either via the vehicle of the Junior All Blacks, or the Maori All Blacks http://www.irb.com/pacificnationscup/index.html.
* NZ born players comprised the entire Samoan team to the last RWC.
* Michael Fay (A New Zealander) funded Samoa since 1996.
* David Richwhite (A New Zealander) also funded Samoa since 1996.
* New Zealanders Bryan Williams, Pat Lam and Michael Jones have all coached Samoa
 
Anything else you need on that front?
 
Now what exactly have Wales or England done for Portugal?
 
____
But rather than start pointing the finger. Looking at this situation in detail.
 
Samoan rugby is funded primarily by four sources of revenue.
 
1. IRB Grants
2. Government Grants
3. Sponsorship
4. Private Donations.
 
Gate revenues do not really feature in the Samoan rugby financial landscape.
 
Samoan Rugby is currently about $109k in debt, which has come about because of a poor 2012.
 
The major contributing factor to the loss was
 
Decreases is Revenue
 
* $1M drop in government funding
* $700k drop in private donations
* $500k in corporate donations
* $500k year on year loss of one-off RWC revenue from 2011.
 
Increases in Costs
 
* $1.5M paid out in costs incurred to host Scotland.  
 
(Worth mentioning that their principal sponsor the Samoan International Finance Authority increased their sponsorship value by around $900k+)
 
So looks to me like more international sides touring Samoa will just incur them greater costs and put a greater demand on their finances, rather than helping them out financially, unless the IRB change the rules on touring costs.

I'm pointing the finger at everyone saying we need to secure a relevant future for these nations. Lower ranked European nations included. Thirty years ago Romania nearly beat the All Blacks, that wouldn't happen now that the gulf between the cream has risen.

 
And 60 years ago Wales beat the All Blacks. Hard to see that happening now. Is it about resources? or the use of those resources? We've given you our coaches (and Sonny Parker  ) !!! I'm not sure what else we can do?

he was raised in the USA? OK well perhaps then Griff, point well raised. But I'm sure if you cut him in half and he will be a boer, nothing else.

Same as Rhys Thomas for Wales, but we never here you complaining about that one Fa!

It's all about the name I suppose...

Griff wrote:Same as Rhys Thomas for Wales, but we never here you complaining about that one Fa!

It's all about the name I suppose...

Well its a bit like Brad Barritt... children of brits etc so thats ok. But boere is a different matter all together.

Seeing a boer turn out for England/Wales/Scotland etc is more bizarre then seeing an Argentine turning out for Brasil in football.

fa0019 wrote:Romania in the 80s were almost professional. The government heavily funded their game and they batted well above their weight against nations with bigger and better but amateur set ups.

When the regime was toppled normality resumed... in the end they have only 10K players within the country. Italy who was seen as a major rival in the 80s has 70K players. They can't compete with such low interest in the sport.

Its like saying East Germans are good at athletics and swimming because of all the medals they won  in the 80s.... and ignoring that it was all due to steroid abuse.

I understand what you're saying but countries with low playing numbers regardless of wealth will never be able to support itself and shouldn't be seen as a priority. Look to nations such as as the US with 250k players... ok many come late into the sport but its a start, they have interest and should be seen as a far higher priority then Romania. The next stage would be getting the sport into schools which will build interest... but it is I admit a difficult task with American football, basketball, baseball etc already well established.

Rugby in America is played in many schools and universities, usually the Elite new england type places but the sport has foundations.

Do other people reading this thread want to see sides outside the top ten of the IRB rankings get stronger?

Do you want to have more competitive teams in Rugby Union?

maestegmafia wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Romania in the 80s were almost professional. The government heavily funded their game and they batted well above their weight against nations with bigger and better but amateur set ups.

When the regime was toppled normality resumed... in the end they have only 10K players within the country. Italy who was seen as a major rival in the 80s has 70K players. They can't compete with such low interest in the sport.

Its like saying East Germans are good at athletics and swimming because of all the medals they won  in the 80s.... and ignoring that it was all due to steroid abuse.

I understand what you're saying but countries with low playing numbers regardless of wealth will never be able to support itself and shouldn't be seen as a priority. Look to nations such as as the US with 250k players... ok many come late into the sport but its a start, they have interest and should be seen as a far higher priority then Romania. The next stage would be getting the sport into schools which will build interest... but it is I admit a difficult task with American football, basketball, baseball etc already well established.

Rugby in America is played in many schools and universities, usually the Elite new england type places but the sport has foundations.

Yeah when I was a junior I played the Eagles U17 side in a tour match, they were good athlete's, huge hitters but their technical nous was poor which came from unfamiliarity with the game. Apparently its gaining ground in California too, buddy of mine is a referee there, emigrated years back.