NZ set to play in Apia

Next year the Super rugby tournament continues through June as there are no internationals. So after that, there is an abridged Rugby Championship (anyone know what that actually entails? I imagine it could be something like 2 home games and 2 away) and then the World Cup.

So there are no tests leading into the RC. The NZRU has been in negotiations with their Samoan counterparts and it looks like there has been an agreement to play in Apia in July: http://www.rugbyweek.com/news/fournations.asp?id=42992

To me it's an ideal time to play this test. A warm-up match will be welcome to blow away the rust before the RC. Apia's venue only holds 15 000 seats but the fact it's finally happening there will mean a lot more to Manu Samoa than those who can attend. Great to see it finally happen and hopefully more of these tests can be scheduled in the years to come and the RWC years seem an opportune time to do that.

Lets just hope that Samoa have ALL their best players available for this or else it will be a waste.

If the test is in late July and there is no club rugby anywhere and this is the first test of its kind in Samoa, I think it's safe to assume every available player will be there.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:If the test is in late July and there is no club rugby anywhere and this is the first test of its kind in Samoa, I think it's safe to assume every available player will be there.

I wouldn't be so sure. If it's not in an international window, then clubs have no obligation to release.

Are there NH club competitions on at that time, late July?

Most of them play for NZ clubs RF so don't think it's an issue there but for those in the NH clubs I'd hope they'd release them as there are no games at that time and it's a one-off game.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Most of them play for NZ clubs RF so don't think it's an issue there but for those in the NH clubs I'd hope they'd release them as there are no games at that time and it's a one-off game.

The Premiership has made ita point of principle not to release players outside the designated window. Saints were fined for agreeing a contract with more liberal release terms for George North.

Point of principle. As in they have the moral high ground?

Well if that's the case, it's a shame. With the June and November international schedule added to the RC, it's difficult to find the time to fit in these games but I'm glad that they've made the effort as it was a glaring omission.

ebop wrote:Point of principle. As in they have the moral high ground?

The Premierships clubs have a formal agreement with the RFU. The RFU pays the clubs for access to designated international players outside the window.

July is not some random period with no games, it's the off season. Our season starts on the 5th September. If a player still needs to be match fit in late July, then he doesn't get a proper break, or a proper pre-season.

I don't know how up to date Wikipedia is, but it indicates the Premiership employs three props, two flankers, two scrum halves, three centres, a wing and a full back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoa_national_rugby_union_team#Current_squad

If it is accurate, the idea that most Samoan squad players represent NZ clubs seems incorrect. The French have eight Samoan squad players. Generally speaking, they have been more open to releasing outside the window. They showed in negotiations with Argentina that they are quite protective of the off season but might be flexible on a one-off deal.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Most of them play for NZ clubs RF so don't think it's an issue there but for those in the NH clubs I'd hope they'd release them as there are no games at that time and it's a one-off game.

What? Most of Samoa's top players are in France and England!
My first choice Samoa team would be...

1. Mulipola (Leicester)
2. Paulo (Clermont)
3. Johnston (Toulouse)
4. Tekori (Toulouse)
5. Leo (London Irish)
6. Ofisa (London Irish)
7. Lam (Bristol)
8. Fasalele (Castres)
9. Fotuali'i (Northampton)
10. Pisi (Hurricanes)
11. Tuilagi (Newcastle)
12. Leiua (Wasps)
13. Pisi (Northampton)
14. Lemi (Bristol)
15. Autagavia (Northampton)

So thats one player based outside of Europe... Clubs will be well back into their pre season training at that stage but if it these games are used as world cup warm up games then there shouldn't be any problems with player release, Unless clubs pay them not to accept call ups.

If correct, this would be good news.

Might also be a chance to catch the AB's cold, it being the first international of the season?

Fair enough. The dynamic appears to have changed since the last RWC or at least I was confusing NZ born players with NZ based players. My bad.

Just goes to show then how difficult scheduling a test i then if the players are based in different hemispheres. So it seems your fears are justified and that's the last thing this test needs: to be without their top players.

The thing is it really shouldn't be a problem. Like you said there are no matches on in the NH at that time and this could be one of the biggest games in Samoa's history.

But the clubs are just gaining more and more power as each season goes by and the IRB just sit back and let it happen. A global season really is a must.

Couldn't agree more L4L.

It wouldn't hurt if the unions scheduling these matches outside the windows bothered to consult the players' employers first.

It was farcical when Wales named unavailable players for their probables vs possibles game. A match between Samoa and New Zealand in Samoa is a big event for rugby so it would be a shame if it was overshadowed by uncertainty over who might be playing.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:The thing is it really shouldn't be a problem. Like you said there are no matches on in the NH at that time and this could be one of the biggest games in Samoa's history.

But the clubs are just gaining more and more power as each season goes by and the IRB just sit back and let it happen. A global season really is a must.

I think you are conflating two different issues here; a global season and club release.

I am all for a global season with clearly defined international windows. In such a system the clubs should continue to deny access to players in either the agreed off-season or the period allotted for club games. Under the current system this game is in the off-season so access should be denied.

Good to see

Good to see and it makes sense for both teams.

Regarding player release, for the World Cup it's something like 52 day release window. Also for 2011 the PRL agreed to release players to the PI unions (and I think SRU) before this.

Edit: it's 35 days, so mid Augusts the start. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Most of them play for NZ clubs RF so don't think it's an issue there but for those in the NH clubs I'd hope they'd release them as there are no games at that time and it's a one-off game.

What? Most of Samoa's top players are in France and England!
My first choice Samoa team would be...

1. Mulipola (Leicester)
2. Paulo (Clermont)
3. Johnston (Toulouse)
4. Tekori (Toulouse)
5. Leo (London Irish)
6. Ofisa (London Irish)
7. Lam (Bristol)
8. Fasalele (Castres)
9. Fotuali'i (Northampton)
10. Pisi (Hurricanes)
11. Tuilagi (Newcastle)
12. Leiua (Wasps)
13. Pisi (Northampton)
14. Lemi (Bristol)
15. Autagavia (Northampton)

So thats one player based outside of Europe... Clubs will be well back into their pre season training at that stage but if it these games are used as world cup warm up games then there shouldn't be any problems with player release, Unless clubs pay them not to accept call ups.

I understood the Super teams are only allowed 2 players per squad that are not available for NZ so they can't have too many Samoan reps in a team. On the other hand I'm sure Levave, Lam and Leiua were on Samoan duty just recently so one part of my knowledge is clearly wrong.

Anyway with the money available overseas and some kind of restriction in NZ where it seems the bulk of them are born it is likely that a huge number of them are going to be in clubs in the NH. In fact updated stats according to wiki (for what its worth)
Samoan players by country they are playing in according to IRB
Aus 1
Eng 12
France 8
Japan 2
NZ 4
Samoa 4
Wales 1

Anyway just because there is a minimum window that clubs must release players (it is just that - a minimum) it doesn't mean they can't release them for this. (I understand the PRL stance but don't agree with it).

Listened to Kevin Mealamu this morning. Interesting. Obviously he has connections through family back to the Islands. It will be huge in Samoa, which is great. The country will stop.

He's fully aware of the issues involved and is very aware of reasons why it's difficult for the AB's to find the opportunity to play there. Which I found interesting (he didn't need to make that point).

I think it's as good a timing as can be expected. It does rely on release of players by European clubs. It is the off season going into the world cup so there may be a chance. Although the general rule of thumb in England is that players wont be released. It'll be interesting to see how many PI players are unavailable for the 2015 comp.

I think the IRB missed a trick in allowing unions to negotiate with clubs for additional player release. My preference for a number of reasons would be all or nothing. I.e. if you cannot train or play a player in a test squad or team if that player comes from a club who selectively releases players.

blackcanelion wrote:...I think the IRB missed a trick in allowing unions to negotiate with clubs for additional player release...

What is stopping unions negotiating with clubs for additional player release? That's exactly what the RFU did with the Premiership clubs.

[EDIT: Sorry, I've just seen what you meant. Ignore that comment.]

If it turns out that player release is an issue for this match - and I've seen nothing so far to suggest it definitely is - then any talk about the time slot being the best available will be hogwash.

It's shameful that it has taken NZ well over a century to get their asses over to the PI to play Samoa. Considering the amount of players they have stolen from Samoa it is the least they could have done.

rainbow-warrior wrote:It's shameful that it has taken NZ well over a century to get their asses over to the PI to play Samoa.  Considering the amount of players they have stolen from Samoa it is the least they could have done.

Yes, it will be a big day for the 3 to 5 former AB's that were born and grew up in Samoa. You live here, so you're obviously aware that public sentiment backs the game.  Should be a great event.

Does anyone know what the NH clubs typically charge to release players? Presumably Samoa should theoretically be the ones to cover this cost. The NZRU will no doubt chip in as I imagine the Samoan union isn't flush.

ebop wrote:Does anyone know what the NH clubs typically charge to release players? Presumably Samoa should theoretically be the ones to cover this cost. The NZRU will no doubt chip in as I imagine the Samoan union isn't flush.

I think therein lies the problem. Does any player from outside the clubs union actually get released. At the moment it's heavily weighted towards the clubs. I suspect the cost for Samoa will be prohibitive. The premier clubs as a whole would have to agree and to minimise the fee for the game to be meaningful. Given the lack of English and French based players that are released outside the window and the fining of Northampton for playing George North I'd say the chances are slim.

I dont mean to sound like a miserable old prik, but why should the NZRFU pay Northern hemisphere clubs to release Samoan players?

New Zealand gets criticised by many for not selecting All Black players who ply their trade in far off places seeking the mighty dollar. perhaps this is a good opportunity for Samoa to make some responsible decisions, set some boundaries, then with a top competitive side available they will not only attract television broadcasters, but also might find that the likes of Australia and New Zealand will find playing in Apia a far more attractive proposition.

You could argue why should clubs not get some kind of compensation when someone else wants to use (and potentially break) the players that they feed, cloth, train and work hard on to keep healthy? And surely the said players are going to sign for said clubs with their eyes open?

Having said that let us hope that in this case common sense prevails, and it is treated as a one off part of the build up to the RWC, but I just dont get the evil bad guy club thing that seems to be developing in this thread.

Hey BCL what did Mealamu say about the reasons why it's difficult for the ABs to play there? Would be cool to hear his perspective.

Probably the worst thing about the game is possibly Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu thinking he's got more influence than he has, and going off on other ridiculous tirades.

Playing in Samoa will only have 3,000 less than if they played in Christchurch with their 18,000 capacity. I am sure that SKY Sports NZ will get the rights to televise the game as I am guessing Samoan television would not have the capacity to televise such a game (although I hope I am wrong).

I see no reason why NH teams could not visit the PI's for a game on their way to or from Aussie / NZ in the future.

Have NH teams not played some games in PIs in the last few years?

On player welfare, the unions insurance covers the risk of a player getting injured.
It isn't so much release clauses in the players contracts, so much as the players having to take unpaid leave during the contract.

The PRL stance on releasing outside of international windows is based on the November internationals where the additional games held by the likes of Wales directly impacts on a club fixtures either on the same weekend or else impacting performance levels for fixtures the following week. Neither of those consequences should arise with mid-summer fixtures.

Scotland did but only as they seem on the outer for tours to the SANZAR countries at least for three tests. They went on another Contiki rugby tour this June and I don't think anybody would describe that tour schedule as desirable.

It seems the likes of Samoa need to identify the most opportune moment for touring teams to come and get some sort of dispensation or reach some sort of agreement to ensure their best players are able to be picked. It seems if you're a test nation outside the RC and 6N, the test windows are slim pickings. I'm not sure but my impression is that the Pacific Nations Cup doesn't have Samoa's top players available so realistically they only have their top players available in the November test window and that's it. That doesn't seem fair to them so maybe you could have a minimum of internationals for every team in any rugby calendar year.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:... I'm not sure but my impression is that the Pacific Nations Cup doesn't have Samoa's top players available...

They were all available this year. The tournament was played in the three week June window. Samoa skipped it last year to play in the four team tournament in South Africa.

Samoa did play a warm-up against Japan outside the window and had to field an understrength team. Japan gained enough ranking points in that win to vault up the ladder.

Stephen Betham has just said this, which sounds good, although that "most" is a bit troubling.

"We've asked for a test and if it does come true it's a good measure of where we will be at heading into the World Cup. That's when the Pacific Nations Cup is next year so most of the players will be released by then. It's just a matter of how far we will have to travel for the next game - because I think maybe some of the games will be in Canada - so it's just getting across from the Pacific to Canada will be the question".

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/pacific/249126/sport-manu-samoa-coach-says-top-team-would-face-all-blacks

Cheers RF. That was the game I had in mind when I read that they didn't have their top players.

Still three weeks in June and three weeks in November doesn't amount to much. When is it possible for SANZAR teams to play Samoa with the assurance of having their best players available? At a World Cup or in a World Cup year seems the best bet to me.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Cheers RF. That was the game I had in mind when I read that they didn't have their top players.

It's a bit confusing because Samoa usually play Japan in the Cup. This time, however, the teams were split into two conferences of three teams: Samoa/Fiji/Tonga and Japan/Canada/USA.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Cheers RF. That was the game I had in mind when I read that they didn't have their top players.

Still three weeks in June and three weeks in November doesn't amount to much. When is it possible for SANZAR teams to play Samoa with the assurance of having their best players available? At a World Cup or in a World Cup year seems the best bet to me.

Under the current tour system. I think once every 12 years. That's the year neither the Lions or France tour. I think 2021 is the next opportunity, assuming France doesn't tour. I can't see the NZRU forgoing a home test. The financial margins are probably too tight.

I couldn't find the Mealamu interview. It's on Radio sport live. the shows for the week are all downloadable, just can't remember what time it was. Pretty generic interview really from memory. The game will be big in Samoa, understands the issues with not playing there, etc..

Someone asked about animosity towards NH clubs. I thought that would be obvious given the constant flow of NZ's 2nd tier talent overseas without the NZRU gaining any reward for developing them into half decent players. Not sure if this is feasible given the nature of the sport, but I'd like to see the NZRU and NZ clubs put everyone on longer contracts so that NH clubs had to actually pay to break contracts rather than getting freebies. And that includes the NZ'ers that play for Samoa that have been developed in NZ, ie, most of them.

Yep bad bad NH clubs going and offering your players a decent salary and lifestyle. Nasty mean things - should only offer SH players a couple of dried crusts and the odd flogging (but only if they play really well)

goes hand in hand though...we get criticised for not going to play there to help promote Samoan rugby in the region due to financial reasons...will the NH clubs release them to do the same? Just who's the bad bad here again?

yes its a problem. Always has and probably always will until global warming forces the remaining PI inhabitants to move en masse to either NZ or Leicester.

I just dont think it does us much good to treat anyone as bad guys as such. It just feels like its the lazy option to either blame international teams for not touring, or for (NH) clubs to offer PI players salaries beyond the dreams of anything they are likely to be able to make staying at home

I would just prefer a system whereby clubs/unions that develop players actually get rewarded for that investment. Imagine an NH club having to pay a Samoan club a large amount of money for a player. That would help them out a lot. I was asking, why doesn't that happen now? Is it because contracts are so short that the NH clubs just wait a year or two and then get them as a freebie?

ebop wrote:I would just prefer a system whereby clubs/unions that develop players actually get rewarded for that investment. Imagine an NH club having to pay a Samoan club a large amount of money for a player. That would help them out a lot. I was asking, why doesn't that happen now? Is it because contracts are so short that the NH clubs just wait a year or two and then get them as a freebie?

So you want the same system soccer uses,the one that sees international football relegated to a sideshow except for every 2nd year when a big competition comes round?I can understand your concerns but I really don't know what can be done to make everyone happy.The French and English clubs are run on such a different model from every other country and they just don't seem to be fully compatible.

Taylorman wrote:Just who's the bad bad here again?

If players turn out not to be available, then the fault will lie with whoever agreed the date for such an important match. It's no secret that Samoa doesn't centrally contract players, and that most are playing professional rugby for clubs overseas.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Just who's the bad bad here again?

If players turn out not to be available, then the fault will lie with whoever agreed the date for such an important match. It's no secret that Samoa doesn't centrally contract players, and that most are playing professional rugby for clubs overseas.

So it's the irb's fault then. The current system doesn't provide for the game. One option would be for England and Wales to forgo their games against Samoa and nz in November. Works for me. Actually, looks quite good. Samoa don't play week 2 and nz play scotland so the majority of players would have 2 weeks to acclimatise.

blackcanelion wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Just who's the bad bad here again?

If players turn out not to be available, then the fault will lie with whoever agreed the date for such an important match. It's no secret that Samoa doesn't centrally contract players, and that most are playing professional rugby for clubs overseas.

So it's the irb's fault then. The current system doesn't provide for the game. One option would be for England and Wales to forgo their games against Samoa and nz in November. Works for me.

It's clear that Samoa would accept that match on any terms offered: they want it and aren't in any kind of position to refuse a proposal. It's also clear that Steve Tew said as recently as May that "there isn't any time on our crowded calendar" for a match. As far as I can see, the NZRU hasn't dropped an existing fixture to fit in this game, they've just chosen a date outside the IRB window.

It's evident that the NZRU didn't anticipate the lack of a match in Samoa becoming such a public relations disaster. Steve Tew was, of course, right. There isn't any room in the All Blacks schedule because it's all been sold off well in advance.

What I see is an effort by the NZRU to get this monkey off their back. Not by biting the bullet, and ditching one of their pre-arranged games but by asking the rest of the rugby world to accommodate their earlier scheduling mistake.

This, of course, is the same NZRU who gave priority to their super rugby schedule over Test match rugby with regard to the timing of the recent June series. Sorry, did you just suggest that the RFU ought to do the NZRU a favour?

If Samoa's best players aren't released for the match - and it seems there's room to be hopeful that the worst will be avoided - then of course it will be down to the NZRU. They know the match is not at an authorized time because Steve Tew already made that plain.

It's clear that nobody's going to do anybody any favours and everyone's protecting their own interests. No surprise there.

Favours don't tend to be mentioned on 606v2 too often.

While I'm not a fan of the RFU, did they not host games against Samoa/Fiji in the not so recent past in Twickers and gave a decent portion of the gate receipts to the union to help them out of trouble. My memory isn't what it was.

We generally don't know how much give up. There was an article a while back which said the RFU gave £75k to the Pacific Islanders for expenses (2008). Other than that don't know (we hosted an Argentinian home game at Old Trafford so they could get more gate money in 2009).

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

There was something about the Australians getting £750k from WRU for their 4th AI (not sure it that's the usual amount or specifically for additional game)

Regardless the whole issue of 'getting a match' to the Islands seems to be (like this thread) quickly turning to the importance of 'someones' dollar- the very reason the ABs havnt gone there before- because its not commercially viable, and it seems thats looking the case in more ways than one.

The match is about 'giving back' to the Islands for their contributions to the game. And to meet the 'spirit' of that intent, its obvious both clubs and Internationals alike need to make sacrifices- being the benefactors of their contributions, regardless of how.

I guess we'll continue to monitor how generous that giving is from all concerned, as ideally we would like to see the full AB side versus a full Samoan side from this venture, rather than trade offs, watered down sides etc.

Taylorman wrote:The match is about 'giving back' to the Islands for their contributions to the game. And to meet the 'spirit' of that intent, its obvious both clubs and Internationals alike need to make sacrifices- being the benefactors of their contributions, regardless of how.

New Zealand isn't representing the rest of the rugby world in this fixture, so I don't see the logic in framing the match as one everyone needs to pitch in for.

The date has been crammed into the schedule because several former All Blacks described the failure to play there as insulting to Samoa, and one media group turned the issue into a national debate.