Heavyweights want bigger slice of Cup pie

[TRF C A Iversen]

I presume everyone's on about this part:

I know and it's a shame, the article had two pieces, yet everyone's on about one part and one nation. That's why I said what I did.

Still, as far as I'm concered I think none of the Southern Hemisphere unions will get very far with trying to get 50% of the profits (after all costs) in someone else's country. It actually seems fair to me for it to be the case for every country no matter where they tour, but it simply won't happen. The defence of the argument will largely be based on the fact that most fans in any country turn up to see the home team generally.

I agree with Cooky though about the teams that have been sent down under most of the time. Although to be fair I wouldn't call them 'B' teams, but more like somewhere inbetween A- or B+ teams, there's usually been some significant "injuries" pop up and I'm sure they will do again.

 

[Teh Mite]

I don't know how much they are asking for ... I was talking half, but it's probably a lot less than that - regardless, either way, we are talking profits, ie revenue less costs, so yes, costs would be taken out first

One presumes in that case that the return would be offered to all touring nations to New Zealand et al?

 

[ranger]

One presumes in that case that the return would be offered to all touring nations to New Zealand et al?

As mentioned earlier, that could well be part of the deal. Due to the reasons mentioned the games played in NZ hardly draw up any money at all. If all the profits from both the June and Novemeber were split 50/50 New Zealand would still come out with far more money than they are making currently

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Sounds similar to what David Haye vs. Wladimir Klitschko spilt in their contract for the fight. When one is bringing more money to the table and the other feels that despite holding a few belts he deserves a bigger slice of the pie.

Id like to also point out to the poster who says Wales sends weaken side down under all the time. Yep we send weak sides down because when players get injured we have to find replacements so when these replacements are not house hold names its hardly the WRU's fault that the players get injured so Wales have to take weaken sides down under. So I'd like to apologise for this. We do try and send the strongest of what we have left to you though.

 

[Feicarsinn]

What's all this bashing New Zealand alone about here? Is there no greater villain in World Sport? I know we sit here on piles of money and taking every already talented and well developed island player from their cots, but come on, this article was about a group of nations.

Think you're playing the victim a bit too much on this one mate. We're talking about New Zealand because they're the ones mentioned the most in the first post.

 

[ranger]

The French are the worst by far. The side they sent in 2007 was pathetic, with many players openly rested. NZ won 42-11 and 62-10, which sort of confirmed that the NH wasn't taking the June matches seriously (France would later prove that they could have put up a better showing)

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Think you're playing the victim a bit too much on this one mate. We're talking about New Zealand because they're the ones mentioned the most in the first post.

They are the one's mentioned the most in the first post, but they are also the one's being mentioned exclusively since, a that's a fact.

 

[Gavin]

I do not understand why most of you southern hemisphere people constantly believe that northern nations send down their 'B' teams.

Lee Byrne, Leigh Halfpenny, Andrew Bishop, Jamie Roberts, Tom Prydie; Stephen Jones, Mike Phillips; Paul James, Matthew Rees, Adam Jones, Bradley Davies, Alun Wyn Jones, Jonathan Thomas, Gavin Thomas, Ryan Jones. Wales team that lost 42-9 to New Zealand (19/06/2010)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/8746334.stm
Lee Byrne, Leigh Halfpenny, Jamie Roberts, Jonathan Davies, George North; James Hook, Mike Phillips; Paul James, Matthew Rees, Adam Jones, Bradley Davies, Alun Wyn Jones, Dan Lydiate, Sam Warburton, Ryan Jones. Wales team that lost 28-9 to France (19/03/2011)
http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/wales/matchcentre/7991.php?section=lineups&fixid=140062
B Foden; M Cueto, M Tindall, S Hape, C Ashton; T Flood, D Care; T Payne, S Thompson, D Cole, S Shaw, T Palmer, T Croft, L Moody, N Easter. - England team that played Australia on the 12th of June 2010
http://www.espnscrum.com/englandtour2010/rugby/story/117181.html
Foden; Ashton, Banahan, Hape, Cueto; Flood, Youngs; Corbisiero, Hartley, Cole, Deacon, Palmer, Wood, Haskell, Easter. - England team that lost to Ireland on 19/03/2011
http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/england/matchcentre/7991.php?section=lineups&fixid=140061

There is not much between those the teams; I will concede that young players and 'experiments' are sent to the south but the same can be said about teams from the south coming north. Remember when Toeava came up at the age of 19 (I think); it was only because I watch the NPC that I knew of him, same with O'Connor and the Super 14.

So it is not a fact that you can't fill the stadiums because of northern teams, it's because your supports don't want to go and watch the match live.

 

[Melhor Time]

As Ranger has pointed out, you don't know what your talking about. The NZRFU loses a lot of money each year trying to retain players and keep their competitions going. Of course they have to go after good paying End Of Year games.

Not the fault of France or anyone else and certainly not for them to pay the debt.

As for Argentina, many of their players have been unavailable for our Winter tests, and there is no deliberate attempt to deny them games in New Zealand. For New Zealand to play over there in the crowded schedule of rugby as it currently stands it's not easily organised for either team.

Utterly not true. Argentina wanted to continue hosting the likes of Australia, South Africa and New Zealand once every four years in a November test or a June test. The idea was shut down and not by the UAR or the IRB....

Furthermore, I had personal contact with the NZRU several years ago about this exact problem of New Zealand sending a side every year to play in Wales and almost always win big but play in Argentina far less despite having much more competitive matches. The response was that there are factors other than ability to consider such as economics. Fact - Wales pay NZ for the match, Argentina don´t.

How have New Zealand sought to deliberately make Fiji, Samoa and Tonga under-strength? Far more of their international players are playing in the Northern Hemipshere than here.

1. Never playing them when they can call upon all their players.

2. Never playing in the Pacific Islands.

3. Always playing in winter and will again vs Fiji this year.

4. Those opting to play for the Islands and not the All Blacks find themselves struggling to keep their Super Rugby contracts.

As for Hong Kong? Of course it sends a message, it sends a message of two Rugby Unions (New Zealand and Australia - although your letting them off the hook largely), that in New Zealands case, are so low on funds (actually debt) that they have to try and play places that will make money.

Thats one explanation but not the only one. Its about making profits, no doubnt there. The same unions refuse to select overseas based players and the claim is that it damages the Wallaby or All Black jersey. Obviously there is more to it than that or else why play a friendly in a Chinese or Japanese city? Curiously, New Zealand could have played Argentina in Barcelona and got more fans than they did for Hong Kong. Or in Dubai vs Fiji and again..... same result. My suggestion is think better - look to make more money by expanding the size of the pie in terms of friends. There is a lot of money to be made this way. Argentina and Fiji were Quarter Finalists last time around after all.

New Zealand does not treat Fiji badly, you build a weak and angry case. I'm sure France will pack Nantes for France Vs Fiji every couple of years. I'm sure the locals wouldn't eventually get sick of that.

Weak and angry case?

New Zealand have never ever played an offical test in Fiji. One four occassions there have been non-international games in Fiji vs NZ XV´s but never a test match. The most recent time was in 1984. Since then NZ have hosted Fiji four times. There was one occassion when Fiji could have hosted NZ but the unions agreed to play it in NZ in 2002.

Vs Tonga it is as follows: three games in history. Two at World Cup´s. None in Tonga. most recent match was in 2000 at North Harbour.

Vs Samoa it is as follows: five games in history. None at World Cups. None played in Samoa - all played in New Zealand.

The facts speak for themselves. New Zealand has never played a single test match in the Pacific Islands. The same cuontry want´s a payout from the Europeans. Looks greedy to me.

I have nothing against NZ but dislike the power that few unions have over the vast majority.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Not the fault of France or anyone else and certainly not for them to pay the debt.



Utterly not true. Argentina wanted to continue hosting the likes of Australia, South Africa and New Zealand once every four years in a November test or a June test. The idea was shut down and not by the UAR or the IRB....

Furthermore, I had personal contact with the NZRU several years ago about this exact problem of New Zealand sending a side every year to play in Wales and almost always win big but play in Argentina far less despite having much more competitive matches. The response was that there are factors other than ability to consider such as economics. Fact - Wales pay NZ for the match, Argentina don´t.



1. Never playing them when they can call upon all their players.

2. Never playing in the Pacific Islands.

3. Always playing in winter and will again vs Fiji this year.

4. Those opting to play for the Islands and not the All Blacks find themselves struggling to keep their Super Rugby contracts.



Thats one explanation but not the only one. Its about making profits, no doubnt there. The same unions refuse to select overseas based players and the claim is that it damages the Wallaby or All Black jersey. Obviously there is more to it than that or else why play a friendly in a Chinese or Japanese city? Curiously, New Zealand could have played Argentina in Barcelona and got more fans than they did for Hong Kong. Or in Dubai vs Fiji and again..... same result. My suggestion is think better - look to make more money by expanding the size of the pie in terms of friends. There is a lot of money to be made this way. Argentina and Fiji were Quarter Finalists last time around after all.



Weak and angry case?

New Zealand have never ever played an offical test in Fiji. One four occassions there have been non-international games in Fiji vs NZ XV´s but never a test match. The most recent time was in 1984. Since then NZ have hosted Fiji four times. There was one occassion when Fiji could have hosted NZ but the unions agreed to play it in NZ in 2002.

Vs Tonga it is as follows: three games in history. Two at World Cup´s. None in Tonga. most recent match was in 2000 at North Harbour.

Vs Samoa it is as follows: five games in history. None at World Cups. None played in Samoa - all played in New Zealand.

The facts speak for themselves. New Zealand has never played a single test match in the Pacific Islands. The same cuontry want´s a payout from the Europeans. Looks greedy to me.

I have nothing against NZ but dislike the power that few unions have over the vast majority.

Wow. I could refute all of that, but the mere fact that you've refused to accept one single thing I said out of all of that shows that you can't be budged on anything.

For example, your first response was highly unusual "Not the fault of France or anyone else and certainly not for them to pay the debt."

I never said that France or anyone else should pay their debt! The statement of mine you quoted was saying that it's perfectly understandable that a nation with debt would go after games that pay more. That's logic! Why would they go even further into debt playing sides that generate less revenue, when they are in debt? :lol:

Also, for a nation so mean to the islands, I had a check and 14 out of 24 current Samoan players I was able to check up on were born in New Zealand. So nasty of them to poach them from us.

So why bother responding to the rest of it, I'll simply say, "Your welcome to your opinion, but to me it's simply rampant speculation and semi-accurate statements".


And of course, after reading what you say, "You have nothing against New Zealand" :lol:

 

[Shaggy]

Not the fault of France or anyone else and certainly not for them to pay the debt.

As CA Iverson says, if your union is in debt, your going to try to play some sides that are going to generate revenue aren't you

... If you are in debt, you can try and maximise your revenue by playing these games, try and reduce your costs by salary capping your squad and reducing the size of your Super Rugby squads (as Australia, who are also struggling financially are doing next year), completely do away with teams to save money (New Zealand A), disbanding domestic competitions to save money (NZ Womens NPC) or ask for a hand out from the IRB

... or a combination of all of the above

Utterly not true. Argentina wanted to continue hosting the likes of Australia, South Africa and New Zealand once every four years in a November test or a June test. The idea was shut down and not by the UAR or the IRB....

... So Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa all said no to this idea, but have included Argentina for regular tests each year from 2012, in the expanded Tri-Nations tournament ... obviously they had other plans to include Argentina on a more regular basis.

Furthermore, I had personal contact with the NZRU several years ago about this exact problem of New Zealand sending a side every year to play in Wales and almost always win big but play in Argentina far less despite having much more competitive matches. The response was that there are factors other than ability to consider such as economics. Fact - Wales pay NZ for the match, Argentina don´t.

Well, thats the reality of professional sport isn't it ... players need to be played, the money needs to come from somewhere, contracts to TV sponsors need to be fulfilled, so yes they are more likely to play Wales on the end of year tours

... and as for the disadvantaging the Pacific Island players

1. Never playing them when they can call upon all their players.

Just as you point out that the NZRU's financial woes are not France's worry, it's not NZ's worry that the PI teams have lots of players playing in the European competitions. NZ can't force European clubs to release these players for tests, or change a players mind if they choose to stay and play for their clubs.

2. Never playing in the Pacific Islands.

As it's been pointed out on numerous occasions on the threads here, Auckland is the biggest Polynesian city in the world, the wages are better, the stadiums are bigger ... is it any wonder that the Pacific Island nations ASK the likes of New Zealand (and Australia) to play their home games in New Zealand and Australia, and then bank the proceeds from the matches as the HOME nation.

... maybe you should ask what the arrangement is for home games are for the PI teams when they are hosting Six nations teams?

3. Always playing in winter and will again vs Fiji this year.

It's a winter sport in most countries isn't it? ... it certainly is in most countries the Pacific Island players play in ... its a fact of life that international teams have to be able to play in different climactic conditions, and that these conditions often favour the home side

... should New Zealand refuse to play South Africa on the high veldt just because the air is thinner at altitude, and the conditions don't suit them?

4. Those opting to play for the Islands and not the All Blacks find themselves struggling to keep their Super Rugby contracts.

... I don't think so, most of these players were Super Rugby players before they became internationals - the NZ Super franchises value player retention to build up successful squads ... it's more a case of New Zealand trying to hold on to them (and all Super Rugby players for that matter), from taking more lucrative contracts in Europe or Japan

 

[Shaggy]

... and now part two ... the conclusion

Thats one explanation but not the only one. Its about making profits, no doubnt there. The same unions refuse to select overseas based players and the claim is that it damages the Wallaby or All Black jersey. Obviously there is more to it than that or else why play a friendly in a Chinese or Japanese city? Curiously, New Zealand could have played Argentina in Barcelona and got more fans than they did for Hong Kong. Or in Dubai vs Fiji and again..... same result. My suggestion is think better - look to make more money by expanding the size of the pie in terms of friends. There is a lot of money to be made this way. Argentina and Fiji were Quarter Finalists last time around after all.

... New Zealand refuses to select players for the All Blacks who aren't playing in New Zealand to prevent a mass player exodus to European and Japanese clubs, and decimating New Zealand's domestic competition further - it's as simple as that. as for your sugestions about widening the pie, i'm sure they are considering those options too ... I know that they were looking at the possibility of playing Ireland in New York as an idea last year

New Zealand have never ever played an offical test in Fiji. One four occassions there have been non-international games in Fiji vs NZ XV´s but never a test match. The most recent time was in 1984. Since then NZ have hosted Fiji four times. There was one occassion when Fiji could have hosted NZ but the unions agreed to play it in NZ in 2002.

Vs Tonga it is as follows: three games in history. Two at World Cup´s. None in Tonga. most recent match was in 2000 at North Harbour.

Vs Samoa it is as follows: five games in history. None at World Cups. None played in Samoa - all played in New Zealand.

The facts speak for themselves. New Zealand has never played a single test match in the Pacific Islands. The same cuontry want´s a payout from the Europeans. Looks greedy to me.

Yes, in addition to the reasons i posted in my previous post about the PI teams choosing to play their home games in New Zealand, where the PI teams take the home revenue (pretty greedy of New Zealand huh?), let me just point out that while NZ did not see the value in putting high scores on PI nations and not deeming these matches test matches in previous years, they have regularly sent development sides etc to the Islands to play, and the New Zealand A side in the Pacific Nations cup each year until the NZFU had to disband that team, due to lack of funds (are you getting the recurring theme of not enough money in NZ Rugby here?)

... There, now Ranger, CA Iverson, and myself have clarified the whole PI internationals situation for you, to varying degrees ... the facts do indeed speak for themselves, but sorry, they don't support your whole "New Zealand is exploiting the Pacific Islands" theory

 

[Melhor Time]

As CA Iverson says, if your union is in debt, your going to try to play some sides that are going to generate revenue aren't you ...

Sadly, for your theory, it has been happenning for far longer than your writting suggests. When NZ rugby was in a great economic state the policy was the same. The point is the NZ opponents have always been the same. Same goes for Australia.

... So Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa all said no to this idea, but have included Argentina for regular tests each year from 2012, in the expanded Tri-Nations tournament ... obviously they had other plans to include Argentina on a more regular basis.

Your writing is misleading. A proud kiwi and good for you but please try not to be as biased as CNN vs Michael Moore. It took Argentina to finish third in a World Cup tournament for the changes to happen. The UAR had tried to play the 3N teams but were given the cold shoulder and dates were always an issue. Why do you think they accepted a game vs the Lions during the European club season knowing they could not get over 26 players? NZ and Aus were opposed to Argentina entering the 3N. If you doubt this go back and look at material published about this from 2000-2007. South Africa was in favor and had a lot to do with getting Argentina on board. And I mena a lot. Australia were in between neutral and opposed. New Zealand similarly and NZ argued that Argentina is bad because of geography. They wanted the Pacific Islands on board instead.

Well, thats the reality of professional sport isn't it ... players need to be played, the money needs to come from somewhere, contracts to TV sponsors need to be fulfilled, so yes they are more likely to play Wales on the end of year tours

And by this logic Wales, England, France etc are welcome to laugh off NZ´s request of sharing revenue. They need to pay their own costs, right?

Lets live and learn and not just live. Collaboration is the key. Its such a shame that games like Australia vs Samoa are not lucrative at home. But this is a problem for both sides and not just Samoa. With a few changes Australia could be able to sell out Canberra or the Gold Coast for a match like this but today cannot come close. Having more competitive teams is in the interests of everybody. Failing to play matches vs a variety of teams harms this severely. The public demand fresh product. Samoa´s best XV is all pro and with the right encouragement from the powers could indeed improve and be a RWC Quarter Finalists again. Its a two way relationship. If Italy van pack venues for matches vs New Zealand then the same should be true in reverse.

... and as for the disadvantaging the Pacific Island players

Just as you point out that the NZRU's financial woes are not France's worry, it's not NZ's worry that the PI teams have lots of players playing in the European competitions. NZ can't force European clubs to release these players for tests, or change a players mind if they choose to stay and play for their clubs.

You see its a double edged sword. If all unions look after mererly their own interests then they cannot do what NZ are doing now and complain about revenues. France can send C grade players to play the All Blacks if they think its a good idea.... France and England could very well say ´you go be a good Samaritan first then come back and ask for help in 5 years´. The issue of Aus and NZ being angry when France fail to send its best team and say it devalues rugby, and means they cannot make the same profits. Yet the same sides have a policy of resting stars for particular matches. Something that is not popular with many unions.

As it's been pointed out on numerous occasions on the threads here, Auckland is the biggest Polynesian city in the world, the wages are better, the stadiums are bigger ... is it any wonder that the Pacific Island nations ASK the likes of New Zealand (and Australia) to play their home games in New Zealand and Australia, and then bank the proceeds from the matches as the HOME nation.

Actually, it only happened on two occasions in history. In 2002 Fiji arranged for its game vs New Zealand to be in Wellington. But what actually happened is NZ approached Fiji saying ´hey, lets help eachother´. If you play in NZ you´ll get more money from the fixture. The second case was in 2004 when Samoa vs Scotland was moved from Apia to Wellington. Despite, like you sawy, NZ having many more people, etc the game was a failure as a draw card. No match between Samoa and New Zealand has ever been moved from Samoa to new Zealand. Pacific Island games are well off the priority list, sadly.

... maybe you should ask what the arrangement is for home games are for the PI teams when they are hosting Six nations teams?

Italy toured most recently and played test rugby in Fiji in 2006 and vs Samoa in 2000. Wales played vs Samoa in Apia most recently in 1994 and England´s tour to Fiji was in 1991. France played vs Samoa and Tonga in the Pacific in 1999 and vs Fiji in Fiji in 1998. Ireland toured Samoa and Tonga in 2003. Scotland toured Fiji in 1998. The game was pro by then..... Georgia, Canada and the USA have all played tests in Fiji and Samoa during the pro era. NZ and Australia never have played there before or during pro rugby. Not when the unions were in a good financial state, nor when in trouble. Interesting, don´t you think?

It's a winter sport in most countries isn't it? ... it certainly is in most countries the Pacific Island players play in ... its a fact of life that international teams have to be able to play in different climactic conditions, and that these conditions often favour the home side

Actually, no not any more. Its played for 10 months professionally with international matches occuring in various seasons. November in Tokyo or Hong Kong is not winter. The fact of life is Pacific Island Fixtures are not a priority due to economics and are only put in the schedule when there is no other possibility. The 6N is played in winter but the touring matches in November are autumn internationals not winter. The Churchill Cup is a summer event. The Asian 5N is a Spring tournament. The Sur Americano is an autumn event. etc, etc.

In terms of the Pacific Nations Cup matches. I am all for them. Fantastic to see teams play there. I saw Fiji vs NZ Maori in 2006 in what was a packed stadium in Suva. Fantastic. Should be there every year. My criticism of it is that the matches are not test macthes, don not count to World Rankings. It should be the All Blacks touring. Does not have to be the top players. They can do what Argentina do vs Chile and Uruguay (games next week btw) and send weakened sides to allow for a more competitve game and o give more players opportunities. Should happen.

But my utopia is a Oceania Cup played every four years - during Lions tours featuring six teams: Australia, Fiji, Japan, New Zealand, Samoa and Tonga. To be hosted in one country. Start with Japan hosting in 2013. Played in the same was as the Churchill Cup - two groups of three with a finals round of 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2 and 3 vs 3.

 

[kovana]

Also, for a nation so mean to the islands, I had a check and 14 out of 24 current Samoan players I was able to check up on were born in New Zealand. So nasty of them to poach them from us.

How can Samoa be poaching Samoans? We obviously dont have enough money to compete with the Salaries NZ offers.

Stop dodging the issue.. Why wont the All Blacks play in Samoa, Fiji or Tonga? Consider the amount of Pacific Islanders in the NZ team... Its a disgrace by NZ to have never played a test in the Islands.

 

[monkeypigeon]

How can Samoa be poaching Samoans? We obviously dont have enough money to compete with the Salaries NZ offers.

Stop dodging the issue.. Why wont the All Blacks play in Samoa, Fiji or Tonga? Consider the amount of Pacific Islanders in the NZ team... Its a disgrace by NZ to have never played a test in the Islands.

I think that has been answered about three times now. The Islands request to play their matches in New Zealand as they get a better revenue from taking their share of the NZ revenue than they would from filling the grounds on the Islands,

 

[lucky number 7]

Money money...cant the Sh be satisfied with being the best teams in the world..?

 

[Shaggy]

Sadly, for your theory, it has been happenning for far longer than your writting suggests. When NZ rugby was in a great economic state the policy was the same.

The point is the NZ opponents have always been the same. Same goes for Australia.

What theory, it's just good business isn't it? ... Actually, I referred to CA Iverson's and
your response to his remark where the time frame was specific to the NZFU being in debt, and specifically your remark about it not being France's fault responsibility for NZ's debt, but if you want to apply it historically, sure, I don't doubt that the policy has been to play the top nations/the ones that are going to generate the most income, in the prime windows in the calendar ... that would probably be why they were able to be in a good financial position in the first place wouldn't it? ... whether you like it or not, Rugby is professional now, and players need paying, Rugby unions need to make money and store it away for a rainy day like any other business that's going to incur a loss from time to time.

Your writing is misleading. A proud kiwi and good for you but please try not to be as biased as CNN vs Michael Moore. It took Argentina to finish third in a World Cup tournament for the changes to happen. The UAR had tried to play the 3N teams but were given the cold shoulder and dates were always an issue. Why do you think they accepted a game vs the Lions during the European club season knowing they could not get over 26 players? NZ and Aus were opposed to Argentina entering the 3N. If you doubt this go back and look at material published about this from 2000-2007. South Africa was in favor and had a lot to do with getting Argentina on board. And I mena a lot. Australia were in between neutral and opposed. New Zealand similarly and NZ argued that Argentina is bad because of geography. They wanted the Pacific Islands on board instead.

Wow! which one am I suppose to be? CNN or Michael Moore? ... I'm not trying to be either - I confess that I haven't followed which country lobbied for who with regard to this issue, but any country couldn't be admitted without the consent/agreement of all of the SANZAR nations anyway ... the fact that you say NZ wanted the Pacific Islands does indicate that they aren't quite as self serving as you imply in other posts, and does not imply that they were against Argentina joining the Tri-Nations, merely that the preferred the Pacific Islands

... Anyway, it kinda goes against your whole NZ is only out for itself, and not willing to
help the Pacific Islands arguments doesn't it.

And by this logic Wales, England, France etc are welcome to laugh off NZ´s request of sharing revenue. They need to pay their own costs, right?

Absolutely, it's a professional environment and a business relationship ... if they think
it's in their best interests in the long run, they should, and will resist any changes.

Conversely if the other party (be it NZ, Australia, South Africa, Fiji, Argentina etc, etc)
finds it unworkable, they should try and negotiate a better outcome for themselves.

Lets live and learn and not just live. Collaboration is the key. Its such a shame that games like Australia vs Samoa are not lucrative at home. But this is a problem for both sides and not just Samoa. With a few changes Australia could be able to sell out Canberra or the Gold Coast for a match like this but today cannot come close.

Having more competitive teams is in the interests of everybody. Failing to play matches vs a variety of teams harms this severely. The public demand fresh product. Samoa´s best XV is all pro and with the right encouragement from the powers could indeed improve and be a RWC Quarter Finalists again. Its a two way relationship. If Italy van pack venues for matches vs New Zealand then the same should be true in reverse.

Absolutely, live and let live/win win situations are always better in my opinion - yes, it
is a shame that the population, venues, and average wage in the islands, don't make it
economically viable to host matches regularly in the islands, but these matches do draw good crowds of ex-pat islands. I know, I've been to test matches in Australia, plus Pacific nations cup matches where Tonga chose to play their home matches in Australia for economic reasons - this is a win/win in my book.

You see its a double edged sword. If all unions look after mererly their own interests then they cannot do what NZ are doing now and complain about revenues.

France can send C grade players to play the All Blacks if they think its a good idea....

France and England could very well say ´you go be a good Samaritan first then come back and ask for help in 5 years´. The issue of Aus and NZ being angry when France fail to send its best team and say it devalues rugby, and means they cannot make the same profits. Yet the same sides have a policy of resting stars for particular matches. Something that is not popular with many unions.

I don't think any union thinks solely of its self, but I think they all put themselves first to varying degrees, and sure NZ can't force the likes of France to send their best players, but if they aren't happy about it, there's nothing wrong with telling them, or I guess they could send a development squad back when they tour France (which they never do). As a business that relies on sponsors and holders companies that buy the TV rights sometimes years in advance, I can't imagine that sending understrength teams makes good economic sense in the long run.

Actually, it only happened on two occasions in history. In 2002

Fiji arranged for its game vs New Zealand to be in Wellington. But what actually happened is NZ approached Fiji saying ´hey, lets help eachother´. If you play in NZ you´ll get more money from the fixture. The second case was in 2004 when Samoa vs Scotland was moved from Apia to Wellington. Despite, like you sawy, NZ having many more people, etc the game was a failure as a draw card. No match between Samoa and New Zealand has ever been moved from Samoa to new Zealand. Pacific Island games are well off the priority list, sadly.

I actually think it occurs more than that, it certainly occurred in the Pacific nations cup on at least one occassion for Tonga in Australia - anyway, regardless of how often it occurs, it's a good idea due to the large population of people of Pacific Island descent living in both New Zealand and Australia

Italy toured most recently and played test rugby in Fiji in 2006 and vs Samoa in 2000. Wales played vs Samoa in Apia most recently in 1994 and England´s tour to Fiji was in 1991. France played vs Samoa and Tonga in the Pacific in 1999 and vs Fiji in Fiji in 1998. Ireland toured Samoa and Tonga in 2003. Scotland toured Fiji in 1998. The game was pro by then..... Georgia, Canada and the USA have all played tests in Fiji and Samoa during the pro era. NZ and Australia never have played there before or during pro rugby. Not when the unions were in a good financial state, nor when in trouble. Interesting, don´t you think?

Why is it interesting, if you count the home games played in New Zealand, plus the invitation teams, New Zealand A, New Zealand Maori etc, New Zealand has been better or at least no worse than any of the other tier one nations. It doesn't surprise me that tier two nations play other tier two nations on a regular basis either

Actually, no not any more. Its played for 10 months professionally with international matches occuring in various seasons. November in Tokyo or Hong Kong is not winter. The fact of life is Pacific Island Fixtures are not a priority due to economics and are only put in the schedule when there is no other possibility. The 6N is played in winter but the touring matches in November are autumn internationals not winter. The Churchill Cup is a summer event. The Asian 5N is a Spring tournament. The Sur Americano is an autumn event. etc, etc.

Who's being misleading now? ... we are international rugby yes? ... all of the tier one have their international window in either Winter or Autumn, so if you're going to play the All Blacks at home, you are going to be playing them in the Winter regardless of who you are. Playing the Wallabies in a one off game to raise funds for both teams in Hong kong or Tokyo, on their way to fulfilling their Northern Hemisphere commitments, isn't the same as playing a home game in spring or summer, and you know it.

As a global follower of the game, you'll know that most of the tier one nations are contractually bound to other tournaments outside of these windows.

It's also irresponsible to use examples of the Churchill Cup being played in Summer, when it's not possible due to the climate for one of the partipants (Canada), to play their season in the Winter, except in one province BC.

When you imply in other posts that this years match between the All blacks and Fiji, is an example of New Zealand being unfair to Fiji, you are being misleading because:

a/ All home matches against the All blacks are played in the Winter.

b/ It was organised at short notice, after the rest of the international calendar had already been organised, with the primary purposes of raising funs for the Christchurch earthquake victims.

In terms of the Pacific Nations Cup matches. I am all for them. Fantastic to see teams play there. I saw Fiji vs NZ Maori in 2006 in what was a packed stadium in Suva. Fantastic.

Should be there every year. My criticism of it is that the matches are not test macthes, don not count to World Rankings. It should be the All Blacks touring. Does not have to be the top players. They can do what Argentina do vs Chile and Uruguay (games next week btw) and send weakened sides to allow for a more competitve game and o give more players opportunities. Should happen.

But my utopia is a Oceania Cup played every four years - during Lions tours featuring six teams: Australia, Fiji, Japan, New Zealand, Samoa and Tonga. To be hosted in one country.

Start with Japan hosting in 2013. Played in the same was as the Churchill Cup - two groups of three with a finals round of 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2 and 3 vs 3.

Sure, i've seen a few Pacific Nations Cup matches myself, but as already mentioned, NZ's participation is no longer happening, due to lack of funds.

... New Zealand aren't in the business of sending weakened sides as the All Blacks, and as you need to actually win the match to increase your IRB ranking, and the PI sides weren't beating the A side in the PI cup, I can't see what difference it would make. Anyway, the NZ A side was playing the PI Cup at the same time that the All Blacks were playing the Tri-Nations, so i'm not sure how the ABs could be included

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

How can Samoa be poaching Samoans? We obviously dont have enough money to compete with the Salaries NZ offers.

Stop dodging the issue.. Why wont the All Blacks play in Samoa, Fiji or Tonga? Consider the amount of Pacific Islanders in the NZ team... Its a disgrace by NZ to have never played a test in the Islands.

Did you not read, I said they were born in New Zealand. I was talking about the fact that New Zealand supposedly poaches a small handful of players from the islands, when a heck of a lot of the current Samoan squad were born in New Zealand.

I'm not dodging the issue, New Zealand almost never plays in Samoa, Fiji and Tonga, the same way that Australia and South Africa and many NH sides never do. Do you blame them or just one nation? Also, because the games wouldn't make any significant money in Suva or Apia, it makes sense for those games to be held in New Zealand and give a much larger share of money to Samoa, Fiji etc. That's why. The island nations rugby administrations agree to these arrangements themselves.

Question answered.

 

[kovana]

Thanks for answering the question. *poachers*

 

[nik]

The fact is NZ is and has been the best rugby playing nation in the world. The All Blacks are not only a good team but also a brand. NZRU will try to milk as much money as they can.
Kudos to them if they can get a share of 50-50 profits. It won't be easy, however it is possible because in most other rugby playing nations, the market is not saturated. Unions may give up money in order to generate interest and ensure their national team gets to play against a top rugby nation consistently.

Note that the rugby market in NZ is saturated, more money cannot be generated within NZ by rugby. Also there are emerging sports like league, soccer, basketball etc competing against rugby in a nation of only 4 million people. NZRU needs the money to ensure its top players are not lured ofshore, ensure talent is developed, ensure NZ remains a force in rugby.

I don't see what is wrong with NZRU's new strategy. Players like Tiger Woods demand hefty pay cheques to play in golf tournaments. Same goes with Tennis players. At present the All Blacks are the best, in the future this may not be the case, make the most whilst you can.