Melhor Time
You are so wrong on so many counts in much of what you have posted in this thread that it is difficult to know where to begin.
The country has done a poor job of this since the sport went professional as it has brushed off requests from tis neighbours and is yet to ever play a single test in Fiji, Samoa or Tonga. Two of the three have been World Cup Quarter Finalists. The third defeated France several weeks ago in the World Cup. The NZRU and New Zealanders defend the lack of matches in the Islands stating the Islanders prefer to play in New Zealnd to take a share of the revenue. They also suggest other tier one unions don´t play against tier two sides in away matches.
We don't have to defend anything. The collective Rugby Unions of the Pacific Islands
do not want test matches staged in the Pacific Islands. They want them staged in Auckland. The reason is simple.... money. These are the stadiums in the Pacific Islands....
Teufaiva Sport Stadium (Tonga)...10 000
Apia Park (Samoa) ...................15 000
TFL National Stadium (Fiji)........ 30 000
With the possible exception of Fiji, they do not have sufficient capacity with the kind of ticket prices they can charge in the islands to make any money. In fact Fiji is the only one that could break even. When matches against Pacific Island guest unions are hosted in NZ, ALL of the gate surplus isn't shared,
it all goes straight to the guest union; the NZRU takes nothing. Tickets in NZ sell for three times what they could charge in their home country, because those Pacific Islanders that live in New Zealand are fiscally much better off than those left in the Islands. They can also get much bigger crowds so its a win + win situation for them. In 2004 a Samoa v Scotland match was scheduled for Apia Parkm. The Samoan RU worked that they were going to run at a $300,000 deficit on the match, so they requested THAT match be played in NZ. It was transferred to the Cake Tin, in Wellington, and the match made them over $350,000 surplus.
Surely you understand Fiji, Tonga and Samoa must be allowed to maximize their revenue, or are you suggesting that the IRB and NZRU "knows best" and treat them like parent treats a child who should do what they say.
In the ITM Cup the top players are missing and thus it is not the same product as Super Rugby.
This is just utter rubbish. The ONLY Super Rugby players "missing" are those in the current (at the time) All Black squad.... thats 30 players distributed over 14 teams (about 2 players per ITM Cup team). The impact of those players being missing is negligible. Also, you may not actually realise that several current All Blacks actually played for their ITM Cup teams, including Cruden, Carter, Hore, Woodcock, Donald, Vito, Thomson, Mealamu & Ali Williams. There may be others.
More importantly, this ignores the reality and does not answer the question, let alone address it, that Super Rugby teams have few to no imports. I would, kindly, ask you to take a look at Wales´four teams and the players there. Its proof that there is plenty of room for foreign players.
You are comparing apples with bananas. Yes, Wales have imports, but there are also Welsh players playing just a stone's throw away in the Premiership and the Top 14 .
[TEXTAREA]Craig Mitchell (Exeter Chiefs)
Andy Powell (Sale Sharks)
Mike Phillips (Bayonne)
James Hook (Perpignan)
Lee Byrne (Clermont-Auvergne)
Prior to Warren Gatland's announcement that Welsh players wouldl have a better chance of being selected for Wales if they played in Welsh Celtic League teams, there were a lot more of them playing in other European domestic competitions including non-Welsh Celtic League teams.
Huw Bennett (Leinster, Northampton Saints)
Ryan Bevington (Leinster)
Alun Wyn Jones (Leinster)
Ryan Jones (Leinster, Northampton Saints)
Andy Powell (Leicester Tigers, London Wasps) now at Sale Sharks
Stephen Jones (Clermont-Auvergne)
Shane Williams (Leinster)
[/TEXTAREA]
You simply cannot compare the NZ domestic setup with that in Europe, especially outside the Celtic Countries. Premiership and Top 14 teams are privately owned. totally self-interested setups that would rather have international rugby disappear off the map altogether. Not only that but they actively and regularly stand in the way of players playing for the countries usingn a variety of method including enticements and bonuses (the carrot) and threats to limit or terminate contracts (the stick). In fact, as had been pointed out in this link...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5835961/Rich-Europe-squeezing-life-out-of-Pacific-rugby
....they have actually carried out those threats, and that my friend is a clear and flagrant breach of iRB Regulation 9
[TEXTAREA]REGULATION 9. AVAILABILITY OF PLAYERS
9.1 A Union has first and last call upon the availability of a Player for selection and appearances for a National Representative Team or National
Squad of that Union and all attendances associated therewith, including training sessions.
9.2 Subject to Regulation 9.5 below no Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club whether by contract or otherwise may inhibit, prevent or render
unavailable any player from selection, attendance and appearance in a National Representative Team or National Squad, including training sessions, and any Player must be released upon request by his Union.
9.3 No Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club may require any payment or other benefit from or impose conditions relating to a Player's participation
in a National Representative Team or National Squad of his Union.[/TEXTAREA]
Far from being the provider and savior of Island rugby, the club owners of the Top 14 (and the Premiership to a lesser extent) are a road block to their progress.
