What should rugby do for the Pacific Island Nations.

fa0019 wrote: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.

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote: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.

Careful mate, you are beginning to sound like a Sef Efrican.  

Bathman_in_London wrote:I have said similar on another thread before, but the fact that Samoa are a top 10 team but only share a vote with Oceania (so they have c.1/7th of a vote) as compared to Scotland say who have 2 votes is a bit of a joke.

I know the infrastructure is lacking, but realistically, a 60k stadium isn't about to be built in Apia, there is no money, in the same way, local leagues can't work in the same manner as other 'developing' countries such as Romania/Georgia, as there is a small local population.

There is no easy way to sort this out as these countries are an anomaly, a small rugby mad population, the majority of who live/play elsewhere.

My feeling is that the world international scene should be tiered with relegation between the leagues. At present that is only really viable in Europe with a 6 Nations A/B, but an aim of having the pacific cup winner replacing the rugby championship loser should be a long term aim I think.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I have said similar on another thread before, but the fact that Samoa are a top 10 team but only share a vote with Oceania (so they have c.1/7th of a vote) as compared to Scotland say who have 2 votes is a bit of a joke.

I know the infrastructure is lacking, but realistically, a 60k stadium isn't about to be built in Apia, there is no money, in the same way, local leagues can't work in the same manner as other 'developing' countries such as Romania/Georgia, as there is a small local population.

There is no easy way to sort this out as these countries are an anomaly, a small rugby mad population, the majority of who live/play elsewhere.

My feeling is that the world international scene should be tiered with relegation between the leagues. At present that is only really viable in Europe with a 6 Nations A/B, but an aim of having the pacific cup winner replacing the rugby championship loser should be a long term aim I think.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I reckon at the last WC the majority of the Samoan team were Kiwis. Lets be honest, that is unlikely to change unless a economic miracle in Samoa causes mass immigration back.

I get the start up thing and I don't mean votes should change yearly on world rankings, but surely to have a top ten team having the same theoretical voice as the Cook islands is a bit odd. Parity with Italy (1 vote) would be appropriate I would think.  

GloriousEmpire wrote:Hosting tier 1 international sides costs Samoa around 10 times more than the gate takings they can receive.  Hosting just one game costs them around a quarter of their total turn over.
 
As a measure of the economic scale disparity we're talking about here - England have a larger FX gain on the fund they use for illegally betting against themselves hedging their player bonus scheme than the entire revenue for Samoan rugby for a year.
 
Having more teams tour Samoa is not the answer. This is why Samoa generally ask other nations to host them.
 
There is a proposal that a PI/Samoan super rugby franchise might be hosted by Auckland such that the cost/revenue equation works in profitably in their favour.  This side could presumably say, play touring teams during the EOYTs to Australasia.
 
There would of course need to be a franchise structure such that funds flowed back to the Samoan Rugby Union some how.

maestegmafia wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Hosting tier 1 international sides costs Samoa around 10 times more than the gate takings they can receive.  Hosting just one game costs them around a quarter of their total turn over.
 
As a measure of the economic scale disparity we're talking about here - England have a larger FX gain on the fund they use for illegally betting against themselves hedging their player bonus scheme than the entire revenue for Samoan rugby for a year.
 
Having more teams tour Samoa is not the answer. This is why Samoa generally ask other nations to host them.
 
There is a proposal that a PI/Samoan super rugby franchise might be hosted by Auckland such that the cost/revenue equation works in profitably in their favour.  This side could presumably say, play touring teams during the EOYTs to Australasia.
 
There would of course need to be a franchise structure such that funds flowed back to the Samoan Rugby Union some how.

Encouraging wealthier nations to host less wealthy nations is a great idea and should be done more often, the teams that do so should be applauded for it.

I want to see teams like the PI nations, Americas and lower ranked European nations improve. Finding a balance and implementing such to strengthen the game as whole would hopefully be very beneficial to the sport in the long term.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Hosting tier 1 international sides costs Samoa around 10 times more than the gate takings they can receive.  Hosting just one game costs them around a quarter of their total turn over.
 
As a measure of the economic scale disparity we're talking about here - England have a larger FX gain on the fund they use for illegally betting against themselves hedging their player bonus scheme than the entire revenue for Samoan rugby for a year.
 
Having more teams tour Samoa is not the answer. This is why Samoa generally ask other nations to host them.
 
There is a proposal that a PI/Samoan super rugby franchise might be hosted by Auckland such that the cost/revenue equation works in profitably in their favour.  This side could presumably say, play touring teams during the EOYTs to Australasia.
 
There would of course need to be a franchise structure such that funds flowed back to the Samoan Rugby Union some how.

Encouraging wealthier nations to host less wealthy nations is a great idea and should be done more often, the teams that do so should be applauded for it.

I want to see teams like the PI nations, Americas and lower ranked European nations improve. Finding a balance and implementing such to strengthen the game as whole would hopefully be very beneficial to the sport in the long term.

NZRU are trying to arrange a game in the USA next year. Or should I say AIG are trying to. However the farce is that the US Eagles are not available to play.

maestegmafia wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Hosting tier 1 international sides costs Samoa around 10 times more than the gate takings they can receive.  Hosting just one game costs them around a quarter of their total turn over.
 
As a measure of the economic scale disparity we're talking about here - England have a larger FX gain on the fund they use for illegally betting against themselves hedging their player bonus scheme than the entire revenue for Samoan rugby for a year.
 
Having more teams tour Samoa is not the answer. This is why Samoa generally ask other nations to host them.
 
There is a proposal that a PI/Samoan super rugby franchise might be hosted by Auckland such that the cost/revenue equation works in profitably in their favour.  This side could presumably say, play touring teams during the EOYTs to Australasia.
 
There would of course need to be a franchise structure such that funds flowed back to the Samoan Rugby Union some how.

Encouraging wealthier nations to host less wealthy nations is a great idea and should be done more often, the teams that do so should be applauded for it.

I want to see teams like the PI nations, Americas and lower ranked European nations improve. Finding a balance and implementing such to strengthen the game as whole would hopefully be very beneficial to the sport in the long term.

NZRU are trying to arrange a game in the USA next year. Or should I say AIG are trying to. However the farce is that the US Eagles are not available to play.

What a shame for the Eagles.

It is a huge honour to have the All Blacks tour your nation.

fa0019 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Hosting tier 1 international sides costs Samoa around 10 times more than the gate takings they can receive.  Hosting just one game costs them around a quarter of their total turn over.
 
As a measure of the economic scale disparity we're talking about here - England have a larger FX gain on the fund they use for illegally betting against themselves hedging their player bonus scheme than the entire revenue for Samoan rugby for a year.
 
Having more teams tour Samoa is not the answer. This is why Samoa generally ask other nations to host them.
 
There is a proposal that a PI/Samoan super rugby franchise might be hosted by Auckland such that the cost/revenue equation works in profitably in their favour.  This side could presumably say, play touring teams during the EOYTs to Australasia.
 
There would of course need to be a franchise structure such that funds flowed back to the Samoan Rugby Union some how.

Encouraging wealthier nations to host less wealthy nations is a great idea and should be done more often, the teams that do so should be applauded for it.

I want to see teams like the PI nations, Americas and lower ranked European nations improve. Finding a balance and implementing such to strengthen the game as whole would hopefully be very beneficial to the sport in the long term.

NZRU are trying to arrange a game in the USA next year. Or should I say AIG are trying to. However the farce is that the US Eagles are not available to play.

What a shame for the Eagles.

It is a huge honour to have the All Blacks tour your nation.

Who would a match benefit more?

If you said in the US that NZ were coming to play the Eagles would it sell that many more tickets? Would interest increase that much more? Does the NZ rugby team have big name recognition in the US?

I can't see it myself, sounds like more of an opportunity for NZ to increase sponsorship more than anything else.... and who wants to see their team get beat 0-50 by the 3rd side of a island 1/100th of their population size???

maestegmafia wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Hosting tier 1 international sides costs Samoa around 10 times more than the gate takings they can receive.  Hosting just one game costs them around a quarter of their total turn over.
 
As a measure of the economic scale disparity we're talking about here - England have a larger FX gain on the fund they use for illegally betting against themselves hedging their player bonus scheme than the entire revenue for Samoan rugby for a year.
 
Having more teams tour Samoa is not the answer. This is why Samoa generally ask other nations to host them.
 
There is a proposal that a PI/Samoan super rugby franchise might be hosted by Auckland such that the cost/revenue equation works in profitably in their favour.  This side could presumably say, play touring teams during the EOYTs to Australasia.
 
There would of course need to be a franchise structure such that funds flowed back to the Samoan Rugby Union some how.

Encouraging wealthier nations to host less wealthy nations is a great idea and should be done more often, the teams that do so should be applauded for it.

I want to see teams like the PI nations, Americas and lower ranked European nations improve. Finding a balance and implementing such to strengthen the game as whole would hopefully be very beneficial to the sport in the long term.

NZRU are trying to arrange a game in the USA next year. Or should I say AIG are trying to. However the farce is that the US Eagles are not available to play.

What a shame for the Eagles.

It is a huge honour to have the All Blacks tour your nation.

Who would a match benefit more?

If you said in the US that NZ were coming to play the Eagles would it sell that many more tickets? Would interest increase that much more? Does the NZ rugby team have big name recognition in the US?

I can't see it myself, sounds like more of an opportunity for NZ to increase sponsorship more than anything else.... and who wants to see their team get beat 0-50 by the 3rd side of a island 1/100th of their population size???

Last time the ABs played in the states was in the early 80s. Yes this game is sponsor motivated and it is not necessarily going to be the Eagles that the ABs play. The game should generate some profit for the USA union in some way?

The presence of the All blacks in the country, visiting clubs could be a big boost?