English clubs threaten USA - All Blacks in Chicago

[Draggs]

So ignorant!

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?



I still say its irrelevant. We're talking about one early season match.

Ahhh yes, my favourite town in New Zealand. Can't wait to tell everybody when they ask about Benji.

 

[smartcooky]

Ahhh yes, my favourite town in New Zealand. Can't wait to tell everybody when they ask about Benji.

But can you pronounce it without non-kiwis thinking you are swearing at them!

 

[norcalbuff]

So ignorant!

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?

Speaking of ignorance...

James Paterson was born in Christchurch and you said he wasn't eligible to play rugby because he didn't play for Southland. Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand the difference between a NZ club team and a NZ provincial team.

I still say its irrelevant. We're talking about one early season match.

Who are you to say that? The clubs and their fans obviously disagree. And what happens when one of them misses the playoffs, or worse the HEC, because they were missing a key player for a game that was regularly scheduled outside of the international window?

 

[Shaggy]

Wow! ... looks like I missed something here ... just was looking to see if an existing thread existed for this match, as it looks like the time and venue are about to be confirmed as Chicago, in the next few days (Tuesday night NZ Time) ... there's a paragraph in this NZ Herald article that I referenced to support this, but the bulk of the article is about something else http://www.nzherald.co.nz/all-blacks/news/article.cfm?c_id=116&objectid=11252509

Yes, this game is outside the test window, yes the NZRU is getting paid a guaranteed fee of $1 million dollars to cover expenses according to this "The Province" article ... I'm not sure what currency that is in, as the article doesn't say http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/0...o-play-at-chicagos-soldier-field-in-november/

As the article suggests, the profit from this game for US Rugby should be substantial, so they should be able to secure the release of their top players from Europe by paying for it, if money is the issue.

I'm certainly not going to say the NZRU are doing this out of any kindness of heart gesture to expand the global game, they certainly want to be involved in global expansion, but it's for their own financial benefit ... but the other party also get a financial benefit too, plus the chance of increasing the public interest in their own domestic market ... who knows where this could lead if more fixtures are scheduled on a regular basis ... perhaps a stronger professional domestic league that would allow the players to play at home, and thus, make player releases less of an issue.

There's no doubt that the driving force behind this fixture is the All Blacks major sponsor AIG ... but it's a financial necessity for the All Blacks to play at least one of these "out of the window" matches a year now, and, as I've already stated, Rugby USA also stand to gain financially from it as well

 

[munstermuffin]

Very smart having it in Chicago as it'll attract a lot of expats from Uk and Ireland too and should be an easy sell out

 

[welshglory]

If the current 8 premiership players are selected;
Wyles, Manoa, Dolan, Smith, Fry, Suniula, Scully, Lamositele (not sure if he's covered as he's on a academy contract) and they (USA rugby) are able to cut a deal with PRL they will have to pay around £480,000 = $808,000 that will cut a lot into their profits.
I'm not sure they'll even make that much!
Let's hope it doesn't come down to that and a compromise can be reached.

 

[Maverick1987]

This is a crazy argument ! Bottom line we have our set rules in our country those who come to play here abide by those rules ! Is it our clubs problem that NZ want to play USA outside the window ? Nope

Samu Manoa happens to be one of Northamptons best players why should they be without him for 2 rounds of matches ? Same goes with Scully and Wyles

People in NZ and Ireland and other countries with similar set ups must understand that our rugby is set up differently to protect our league and our national side

 

[Tony Manx]

This is a crazy argument ! Bottom line we have our set rules in our country those who come to play here abide by those rules ! Is it our clubs problem that NZ want to play USA outside the window ? Nope

Samu Manoa happens to be one of Northamptons best players why should they be without him for 2 rounds of matches ? Same goes with Scully and Wyles

People in NZ and Ireland and other countries with similar set ups must understand that our rugby is set up differently to protect our league and our national side

Absolutely!

 

[ratsapprentice]

Equally - Suniula, Lamositele and possibly Dolan and Smith wont necessarily be first team players... in which case the clubs wouldn't necessarily mind their players getting experience playing the preeminent team in world rugby.

And that leaves Wyles, Manoa, Scully and Fry.

Although the clubs will probably want payment for their release - the clubs also wont want to deny some of their key players (in the case of Manoa, Wyles and Scully) a chance of being in what would be the biggest game of their representative careers.
If the USA genuinely couldn't afford it then those teams may allow some lee-way if it maintains good morale.

 

[welshglory]

This is a crazy argument ! Bottom line we have our set rules in our country those who come to play here abide by those rules ! Is it our clubs problem that NZ want to play USA outside the window ? Nope

Samu Manoa happens to be one of Northamptons best players why should they be without him for 2 rounds of matches ? Same goes with Scully and Wyles

People in NZ and Ireland and other countries with similar set ups must understand that our rugby is set up differently to protect our league and our national side

What argument? All i was doing was speculating.

 

[smartcooky]

People in NZ and Ireland and other countries with similar set ups must understand that our rugby is set up differently to protect our league and our national side

Having foreign players in your league and denying them national honours protects your National side? Really?

The fact is that for many years, PRL has been critical of the iRB in its handling of the global spread of the game; read about it if you like...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/TRF/Putting_Rugby_First.pdf

They have often stated that their own club structures could do a better job for the minor nations. Well here is a chance for them to put their money where their mouths are and take some actions that are commensurate with their lofty words.

Do I think they will do it? Not a chance, so will be a pity when we see them fail at the first hurdle!

 

[welshglory]

Equally - Suniula, Lamositele and possibly Dolan and Smith wont necessarily be first team players... in which case the clubs wouldn't necessarily mind their players getting experience playing the preeminent team in world rugby.

And that leaves Wyles, Manoa, Scully and Fry.

Although the clubs will probably want payment for their release - the clubs also wont want to deny some of their key players (in the case of Manoa, Wyles and Scully) a chance of being in what would be the biggest game of their representative careers.
If the USA genuinely couldn't afford it then those teams may allow some lee-way if it maintains good morale.

The point is that it's not up to the individual clubs though. They all collectively signed an agreement with Prl which puts it out of their hands.

 

[Maverick1987]

Having foreign players in your league and denying them national honours protects your National side? Really?

The fact is that for many years, PRL has been critical of the iRB in its handling of the global spread of the game; read about it if you like...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/TRF/Putting_Rugby_First.pdf

They have often stated that their own club structures could do a better job for the minor nations. Well here is a chance for them to put their money where their mouths are and take some actions that are commensurate with their lofty words.

Do I think they will do it? Not a chance, so will be a pity when we see them fail at the first hurdle!

Nope but having foreign players in your league and denying them national honours outside the IRB window for the good of the clubs and the league . It also protects the integrity and strength of the league week in week out which passes on to English players and the national side .

Don't get me wrong I understand what you mean but try not to be so one-eyed about it . The game will have to go on without those players

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

On a kind of related issue, Bruce Craig (Bath owner) seemingly wants June inter-hemisphere tests scrapped with the November tests switching from year to year between Sanzar and the 6 Nations hosting them. The same Bruce Craig is one of the primary mouthpieces for PRL and has a prominant position in the new EPCR. Do these sound like comments of a man who's in any way interested in growing the sport globally or are the comments more in line with somebody consumed by self interest? While I agree that we're in danger of test rugby overkill (the top teams play each other too often), Craig's motivation is that if there's less test rugby, there's more scope for club rugby to plug the gap. Craig isn't interested in the NZ/USA test unless it fills his pockets. Then again neither are NZ.

 

[Peat]

They have often stated that their own club structures could do a better job for the minor nations. Well here is a chance for them to put their money where their mouths are and take some actions that are commensurate with their lofty words.

Do I think they will do it? Not a chance, so will be a pity when we see them fail at the first hurdle!

This game and scenario is hardly a sole product of their club structures and therefore not exactly a fair test of their intentions.

Not that I believe them, but I don't believe in twisting the truth to make them look bad either.

On a kind of related issue, Bruce Craig (Bath owner) seemingly wants June inter-hemisphere tests scrapped with the November tests switching from year to year between Sanzar and the 6 Nations hosting them. The same Bruce Craig is one of the primary mouthpieces for PRL and has a prominant position in the new EPCR. Do these sound like comments of a man who's in any way interested in growing the sport globally or are the comments more in line with somebody consumed by self interest? While I agree that we're in danger of test rugby overkill (the top teams play each other too often), Craig's motivation is that if there's less test rugby, there's more scope for club rugby to plug the gap. Craig isn't interested in the NZ/USA test unless it fills his pockets. Then again neither are NZ.

This.

 

[Tony Manx]

On a kind of related issue, Bruce Craig (Bath owner) seemingly wants June inter-hemisphere tests scrapped with the November tests switching from year to year between Sanzar and the 6 Nations hosting them. The same Bruce Craig is one of the primary mouthpieces for PRL and has a prominant position in the new EPCR. Do these sound like comments of a man who's in any way interested in growing the sport globally or are the comments more in line with somebody consumed by self interest? While I agree that we're in danger of test rugby overkill (the top teams play each other too often), Craig's motivation is that if there's less test rugby, there's more scope for club rugby to plug the gap. Craig isn't interested in the NZ/USA test unless it fills his pockets. Then again neither are NZ.

Self interest or not, I think he is right...................there are far too many International matches and this might mean that when they are played, they are actually worthwhile because the Summer tour by England seems totally pointless and is only being carried out to fulfil money commitments and to ensure the ABs come back to Europe in the Autumn...

 

[smartcooky]

Nope but having foreign players in your league and denying them national honours outside the IRB window for the good of the clubs and the league . It also protects the integrity and strength of the league week in week out which passes on to English players and the national side .

Fair enough, however, we allow players in our competitions (ITM Cup & Super Rugby) to play for their countries even outside the test window. The impact of this on our competitions. ZERO.

I guess it comes down to a difference in philosophy. While we in the SH see our domestic competitions as a means to an end (preparing our players for test rugby) you in the NH see it as an end in itself, and test rugby a mere afterthought. I'm a Crusaders supporter, but if Nadolo was called to a Fiji training session and was unable to play in next week's match, then I accept that, and someone else would have to play in his place. This is called "depth" and its why we have squads.

Super Rugby as a franchise competition could disappear tomorrow AFAIC and I would not shed a single bloody tear. I guess it would be different for you if the Premiership were to go.

Don't get me wrong I understand what you mean but try not to be so one-eyed about it . The game will have to go on without those players

Sadly, that may not happen if USA are forced to field a weakened team.

 

[smartcooky]

Self interest or not, I think he is right...................there are far too many International matches and this might mean that when they are played, they are actually worthwhile because the Summer tour by England seems totally pointless and is only being carried out to fulfil money commitments and to ensure the ABs come back to Europe in the Autumn...

ALL professional rugby is to fulfil money commitments; its there to make money for the owners, players and broadcasters. This applies to all domestic rugby and all international rugby

► In a calender year, a top-level international team will play 13 to 15 test matches

► In the SH season a top-level domestic team will play 16 to 18 matches

► In the NH season a top-level domestic team will play 32 to 38 matches (France) or 28-33 matches (England/Rabo)

And you think there too many test matches?

IMO, we have the balance right in the SH, an approximate 50/50 split between test and domestic matches.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I actually do think there are about 3 too many internationals a year. We play the SANZAR nations more than the 6 nations sides these days, takes any of the entertainment value out of it. Sure, there are a lot of club games, but Leinster will played 11 different sides in the league this year and then Toulon, Northampton, Castres on top in Europe. Lots of variety.

The international market is saturated. There are too many games and not enough competitive teams. The only options are to reduce the number of test matches so as to make them meaningful events again or to tour more of the tier two nations. Neither are likely to happen as the smaller unions (pretty much everyone except England and France) need the money the games generate to survive.

 

[Shaggy]

I actually do think there are about 3 too many internationals a year. We play the SANZAR nations more than the 6 nations sides these days, takes any of the entertainment value out of it. Sure, there are a lot of club games, but Leinster will played 11 different sides in the league this year and then Toulon, Northampton, Castres on top in Europe. Lots of variety.

The international market is saturated. There are too many games and not enough competitive teams. The only options are to reduce the number of test matches so as to make them meaningful events again or to tour more of the tier two nations. Neither are likely to happen as the smaller unions (pretty much everyone except England and France) need the money the games generate to survive.

Absolutely, because of the current profit share (or lack of it) for test played in the international window, SH teams need the NH teams to tour in June (although July would be better), and the NH teams need the SH teams to tour in November ... it's a necessary reciprocal arrangement.

I don't dispute the comments other posters have made about the NZRU being in it for the money ... the iRB want to expand the game globally, and the NZRU want to tap new markets for revenue - with fixtures such as these, both can be achieved.

As for the whole, player release thing, that's purely a matter to be negotiated between and agreed to, by Rugby USA, and the clubs ... the clubs are well within their rights to refuse player releases. I guess the players have to consider how many internationals they'll miss/what their sacrificing before they sgn their contracts