Just shows that PRL and their ilk are just users who only pay lip service to the development and expansion of the global game. They are happy to reap the benefits of the iRB Global Expansion program by using foreign players from Tier 2 countries, but appear uninterested in helping to sow the seeds. They are good at making nice sound bytes around negotiation time, and then renege when the time comes for them to show some commitment. Its all they have ever done, and all they will ever do.
Massively over-simplistic view. The agreements regarding the release of players outside of the international windows by Premiership clubs have been in place a lot longer than this game has been scheduled. The clubs cannot release players for games outside of the window for fear of financial and points penalties, which serve a good purpose for the interests of fairness in the league.
The All Blacks didn't need to schedule the game outside of the international window. Why couldn't they have decided to play an international game within one of the designated periods for international rugby. Perhaps they'd rather take the safe buck that comes from touring in Europe over trying to expand the game in North America. What a bunch of arseholes!
Oh give over. Are you guys going over there to play them out of the goodness of your hearts? Is your match fee going to the IRB to further fund rugby in developing countries? Have you offered to play the match during the test window, ensuring release of all the players, or are you going for a match outside the window that doesn't clash with a really lucrative money maker like a fixture at Twickenham?
Well first of all, you may or may not have noticed that the All Blacks only played THREE matches in Europe this past autumn (England, France and Ireland), instead of the usual FOUR; they usually play the fourth against a Home Union side outside the window in a lucrative revenue-sharing match, e.g. the first match v Wales in 2005, the extra match v France in 2006, v Scotland in 2008, v Wales in 2009, v England in 2010 and 2012. Last year was the first time the All Blacks have played only three matches in Europe since 2004. Its because they sacrificed that lucrative extra match with either England, Wales or Scotland, to play a far less lucrative match against Japan.
This year they will begin the European part of their EOYT with a match against England on November 8, and with two more matches (probably against Wales and Scotland) to be confirmed. Its on the cards that once again the NZRU will be sacrificing a lucrative revenue-sharing 4th EOYT match in Europe after the end of the window, to play a less lucrative match against the Eagles before the beginning of the window.
Please note: The NZRU make NO money out of the other three matches on the NH tour, they only make anything out of the arranged fourth match, which is ALWAYS outside of the window anyway, and they have sacrificed that match to play the Eagles, also outside of the window!!
Massively over-simplistic view. The agreements regarding the release of players outside of the international windows by Premiership clubs have been in place a lot longer than this game has been scheduled. The clubs cannot release players for games outside of the window for fear of financial and points penalties, which serve a good purpose for the interests of fairness in the league.
The All Blacks didn't need to schedule the game outside of the international window. Why couldn't they have decided to play an international game within one of the designated periods for international rugby. Perhaps they'd rather take the safe buck that comes from touring in Europe over trying to expand the game in North America. What a bunch of arseholes!
This document is no longer available online as their website is now defunct. So much for commitment to the values of the game.
It was written by certain members of the English rugby fraternity who, with the exception of Quentin Smith (Sale chaiman at the time) were too gutless to put their names to it, but it soon came to light that it was a number of English Club managers and owners. This document was full of criticism that the iRB wasn't doing enough to encourage the spreading of the game globally, and that it was some kind of exclusive "old boys" club. If you read between the lines, you can see that it waxed lyrical about how they considered that English clubs to be God's gift to rugby, and about how they would do a better job than the iRB could do, and that they would never interfere with initiatives that promoted the game on a global basis; well folks that is exactly what they are doing here. This is a chance to put a full strength Eagles team against the All Blacks in front of 60,000 people in the USA, Surely the English clubs can do without the few players that would be involved for ONE match out of a season of 30+ matches.
If by sacrificed the lucrative extra match, you mean got turned down by Wales for asking for a non-negotiable £1.5m match fee, then sure. It was £1.5m or £1.25m the year before that for the England game, depending on which source you read. How much did Japan pay/are the US set to pay?
And PRL will say nothing, because England always play a fourth international every other year, and PRL are compensated for player release in that period under the EPS agreement. If we're prepared to pay, why aren't the Americans?
Well first of all, you may or may not have noticed that the All Blacks only played THREE matches in Europe this past autumn (England, France and Ireland), instead of the usual FOUR; they usually play the fourth against a Home Union side outside the window in a lucrative revenue-sharing match, e.g. the first match v Wales in 2005, the extra match v France in 2006, v Scotland in 2008, v Wales in 2009, v England in 2010 and 2012. Last year was the first time the All Blacks have played only three matches in Europe since 2004. Its because they sacrificed that lucrative extra match with either England, Wales or Scotland, to play a far less lucrative match against Japan.
This year they will begin the European part of their EOYT with a match against England on November 8, and with two more matches (probably against Wales and Scotland) to be confirmed. Its on the cards that once again the NZRU will be sacrificing a lucrative revenue-sharing 4th EOYT match in Europe after the end of the window, to play a less lucrative match against the Eagles before the beginning of the window.
Please note: The NZRU make NO money out of the other three matches on the NH tour, they only make anything out of the arranged fourth match, which is ALWAYS outside of the window anyway, and they have sacrificed that match to play the Eagles, also outside of the window!!
Have either of you read the document "Putting Rugby First". You should, and if you want to, here's your chance
This document is no longer available online as their website is now defunct. So much for commitment to the values of the game.
It was written by certain members of the English rugby fraternity who, with the exception of Quentin Smith (Sale chaiman at the time) were too gutless to put their names to it, but it soon came to light that it was a number of English Club managers and owners. This document was full of criticism that the iRB wasn't doing enough to encourage the spreading of the game globally, and that it was some kind of exclusive "old boys" club. If you read between the lines, you can see that it waxed lyrical about how they considered that English clubs to be God's gift to rugby, and about how they would do a better job than the iRB could do, and that they would never interfere with initiatives that promoted the game on a global basis; well folks that is exactly what they are doing here. This is a chance to put a full strength Eagles team against the All Blacks in front of 60,000 people in the USA, Surely the English clubs can do without the few players that would be involved for ONE match out of a season of 30+ matches.
If by sacrificed the lucrative extra match, you mean got turned down by Wales for asking for a non-negotiable £1.5m match fee, then sure. It was £1.5m or £1.25m the year before that for the England game, depending on which source you read. How much did Japan pay/are the US set to pay?
And PRL will say nothing, because England always play a fourth international every other year, and PRL are compensated for player release in that period under the EPS agreement. If we're prepared to pay, why aren't the Americans?
PRL state publicly that they are committed to global spread of the game, and that they do not want to do anything that cuts across the international game, then do something that does the exact opposite of what they have stated.
There is a world for this kind of behaviour.... duplicitous!!!
NZRU never said they were committed, PRL did! Fact!
Also you clearly do NOT understand how the test window works.
► With the opening AI v England at Twickenham on November 8, there are only two matches left in the window - Fact!
► For all three matches in the window, the NZRU get no money, not even a match fee - Fact!
► All the TV, gate and sponsorship money goes to the home team - Fact!.
You can be sure that Scotland or Wales would scream the house down if one of their "money games" was dropped so that the All Blacks could pop over to Chicago on the weekend of November 15 or 22 to play the Eagles. Playing the Eagles during the window is not an option because the Home Unions will not allow it - Fact!
NZRU never said they were committed, PRL did! Fact!
Also you clearly do NOT understand how the test window works.
► With the opening AI v England at Twickenham on November 8, there are only two matches left in the window - Fact!
► For all three matches in the window, the NZRU get no money, not even a match fee - Fact!
► All the TV, gate and sponsorship money goes to the home team - Fact!.
You can be sure that Scotland or Wales would scream the house down if one of their "money games" was dropped so that the All Blacks could pop over to Chicago on the weekend of November 15 or 22 to play the Eagles. Playing the Eagles during the window is not an option because the Home Unions will not allow it - Fact!
The PRL employs many of our players, both allowing players to improve in high quality full time training environments and to allow a decent living keeping them in rugby rather than off to lucrative careers as many of our players have done in the past. NZ does not do that and even goes so far as to drop players like James Paterson from their Super Rugby teams when they play for the US.
All I see is conjecture about playing us in the window. Do Scotland and Wales scream the house down when Italy get a test against the All Blacks?
The PRL employs many of our players, both allowing players to improve in high quality full time training environments and to allow a decent living keeping them in rugby rather than off to lucrative careers as many of our players have done in the past. NZ does not do that and even goes so far as to drop players like James Paterson from their Super Rugby teams when they play for the US.
Paterson decided to join his family business in Colorado Springs. As such, he could not register for a New Zealand Club side (all players in ITM Cup and Super Rugby MUST reside in NZ and be members of a NZ Rugby Club, registered by May 1st each year) Therefore he wasn't eligible because of his country of residence, NOT because his wish to play for the USA EAgles.
The NZRU has a policy of releasing players for international matches (regardless of when the match is and regardless of what country the player players for). No Pacific Islands player has ever been refused to play for their country, and when Bay of Plenty tried it with a Samoan players a few years ago, the NZRU overruled them and allowed the player to go. Fumiaki Tanaka playedr for Japan, and he is in the 2014 Highlands squad, i.e. hasn't been dropped!! Same applies to Kurt Morath (Taranaki) Taniela Moa (Bay of Plenty/Chiefs), Hale t-pole (Southland), all of whom played for Tonga in the 2013 PRC, and weren't dropped from their Super Rugby/ITM cup sides for doing so.
So our clubs are evil hypocrites because their commitment doesn't extend to shooting themselves in the foot, our newspapers are lying and our Unions won't let the ABs spread their philanthropic message to the world. Not that there is any tangible evidence of this. Oh. And apparently NZ never acts in self-interest at all.
Are you always prone to exaggerated flights of fancy? If so, well this time you are really over egging the pudding.
Unless there have been transfers in that I haven't heard about, there are only six USA players playing in England this season...
Aviva Premiership
1. Chris Wyles (Saracens)
2. Samu Manoa (Saints)
3. John Quill (Exiles)
RFU Championship
4. Eric Fry (London Scottish)
5. Will Magie (Ealing Trailfinders)
National League One
6. Robbie Shaw (Esher)
Are you really trying to tell me that releasing ONE player for ONE match out of nearly 30 regular season matches in a season, is "shooting themselves in the foot". If so, then you are talking a load of unmitigated crap! In any case, most of the 40 clubs don't even have American players on their Roster! If a team is so fearful of losing because ONE player might not be able to play ONE game early in the season, then it doesn't say a lot for the team does it.
Of course they are self interested, just like any professional organisation, however they DO NOT deny players the opportunity to attain the highest honour any rugby players can earn within the game; the privilege of playing for their country, even if doing so might disadvantage the player's own Provincial or Super Rugby team. This is an irrefutable fact!
Paterson decided to join his family business in Colorado Springs. As such, he could not register for a New Zealand Club side (all players in ITM Cup and Super Rugby MUST reside in NZ and be members of a NZ Rugby Club, registered by May 1st each year) Therefore he wasn't eligible because of his country of residence, NOT because his wish to play for the USA EAgles.
The NZRU has a policy of releasing players for international matches (regardless of when the match is and regardless of what country the player players for). No Pacific Islands player has ever been refused to play for their country, and when Bay of Plenty tried it with a Samoan players a few years ago, the NZRU overruled them and allowed the player to go. Fumiaki Tanaka playedr for Japan, and he is in the 2014 Highlands squad, i.e. hasn't been dropped!! Same applies to Kurt Morath (Taranaki) Taniela Moa (Bay of Plenty/Chiefs), Hale t-pole (Southland), all of whom played for Tonga in the 2013 PRC, and weren't dropped from their Super Rugby/ITM cup sides for doing so.
Are you always prone to exaggerated flights of fancy? If so, well this time you are really over egging the pudding.
Unless there have been transfers in that I haven't heard about, there are only six USA players playing in England this season...
Aviva Premiership
1. Chris Wyles (Saracens)
2. Samu Manoa (Saints)
3. John Quill (Exiles)
RFU Championship
4. Eric Fry (London Scottish)
5. Will Magie (Ealing Trailfinders)
National League One
6. Robbie Shaw (Esher)
Are you really trying to tell me that releasing ONE player for ONE match out of nearly 30 regular season matches in a season, is "shooting themselves in the foot". If so, then you are talking a load of unmitigated crap! In any case, most of the 40 clubs don't even have American players on their Roster! If a team is so fearful of losing because ONE player might not be able to play ONE game early in the season, then it doesn't say a lot for the team does it.
Always
I don't know where you got this shiite from unless you are completely misrepresenting something I have said.
Of course they are self interested, just like any professional organisation, however they DO NOT deny players the opportunity to attain the highest honour any rugby players can earn within the game; the privilege of playing for their country, even if doing so might disadvantage the player's own Provincial or Super Rugby team. This is an irrefutable fact!
Apparently you haven't heard of a lot or bothered reading this thread as I posted a complete list of pro players in England in the top 2 levels in the first page of this thread. In case you're too lazy to look it up, there are 7 Eagles in the Premiership, 4 in the Championship and 1 more set to sign with a Championship club, to go with 2 uncapped US-eligible players in the Championship. And Quill never signed with LI and is instead playing with Dolphin in Ireland.
This is from one of your own American rugby websites
"In order to play for the Eagles, which he wanted to do despite living in New Zealand and away from the bulk of the squad, he gave up playing for Southland in the ITM Cup. Then he chose to come into camp with the Eagles and play through pain, delivering some pretty good performances and helping the Eagles become a better team."
The fact that he gave up playing for Southland made him ineligible for a Super Rugby franchise. It was nothing to do with him not being eligible for New Zealand, the only requirement is that he lives in this country. A not unreasonable one IMO. How would he attend training three times per week, plus carry out all the extramural activities that are the duty of a professional rugby player these days (hospital and school visits, charity events etc) if he was living in the USA. There's more to being a professional rugby player than just turning up at the ground for kick-off!!
The fact that he was also under a drug suspension (even though it was probably not his fault) would not have helped his circumstances!
Also, its not as if there haven't been other non-NZ eligible players playing Super Rugby. Back in 2010, the NZRU allowed NZ Super Rugby franchises to include two non-NZ players.
Apparently you haven't heard of a lot or bothered reading this thread as I posted a complete list of pro players in England in the top 2 levels in the first page of this thread. In case you're too lazy to look it up, there are 7 Eagles in the Premiership, 4 in the Championship and 1 more set to sign with a Championship club, to go with 2 uncapped US-eligible players in the Championship. And Quill never signed with LI and is instead playing with Dolphin in Ireland.
There are a couple of extra ones I haven't heard about. Well so what? My point is still valid! Its not as though the Premiership is awash with Eagles so that every club could end up being without three or four of their best players. Its seven players among twelve teams for one early season match out of a full season of nearly 30 matches. What's the big deal, compared with the greater good it will do for the Eagles to have a full strength squad for only their third ever game against the All Blacks, the first since 1991 and the first EVER at a home venue?
This is from one of your own American rugby websites
"In order to play for the Eagles, which he wanted to do despite living in New Zealand and away from the bulk of the squad, he gave up playing for Southland in the ITM Cup. Then he chose to come into camp with the Eagles and play through pain, delivering some pretty good performances and helping the Eagles become a better team."
The fact that he gave up playing for Southland made him ineligible for a Super Rugby franchise. It was nothing to do with him not being eligible for New Zealand, the only requirement is that he lives in this country. A not unreasonable one IMO. How would he attend training three times per week, plus carry out all the extramural activities that are the duty of a professional rugby player these days (hospital and school visits, charity events etc) if he was living in the USA. There's more to being a professional rugby player than just turning up at the ground for kick-off!!
So what ITM Cup team did Benji Marshall play for last year?
There are a couple of extra ones I haven't heard about. Well so what? My point is still valid! Its not as though the Premiership is awash with Eagles so that every club could end up being without three or four of their best players. Its seven players among twelve teams for one early season match out of a full season of nearly 30 matches. What's the big deal, compared with the greater good it will do for the Eagles to have a full strength squad for only their third ever game against the All Blacks, the first since 1991 and the first EVER at a home venue?
One club has 3 of them, 2 of whom regularly start. Another is a hugely important, perhaps best, player for his team. The IRB windows are there for a reason and it's ridiculous to expect clubs to devalue their season when there is an agreed-upon window. Just because the NZRU has devalued Super Rugby (for their own national team's benefit) doesn't mean that everyone else feels they should devalue their competition. I hope USA Rugby can come to an agreement with the PRL, but blaming the clubs here is absurd.
Benji Marshall was born in New Zealand (Whakatane) and is registered with Auckland Marist RFC, making him eligible for the Auckland ITM Cup team this year! I never said he had to have already played for them, only that he has to be registered with a New Zealand Club team before May 1. You do understand the difference between a NZ CLUB rugby team and a NZ PROVINCIAL rugby team?
One club has 3 of them, 2 of whom regularly start. Another is a hugely important, perhaps best, player for his team. The IRB windows are there for a reason and it's ridiculous to expect clubs to devalue their season when there is an agreed-upon window. Just because the NZRU has devalued Super Rugby (for their own national team's benefit) doesn't mean that everyone else feels they should devalue their competition. I hope USA Rugby can come to an agreement with the PRL, but blaming the clubs here is absurd.
aterson. Heard his contract was not renewed after he was no longer NZ-eligible so he went to work for his dad in Colorado.
