All Blacks won't play a PI side for at least 7 years

[psychic duck]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/7994794/All-Blacks-have-no-room-for-Pacific-tests

Poor by the NZRU, I thought considering the AIG deal they had they would be able to relax a little about what match would make the most money and do more for rugby worldwide.

Samoa playing New Zealand would be a very interesting match to watch and Samoa could compete now better than they have ever been able to before in the professional era now. No doubt the AIG All Blacks will continue to play lower ranked sides Wales, Italy and Scotland a fair few times in the next 7 years though.

If Wales and Scotland can tour the Pacific Islands, then surely New Zealand can at least host Samoa in June for a match. They claim they "are committed to supporting the islands" but that is nonsense, they don't care at all.

I'm not saying they should play a loss making match every year in Apia in a 15,000 ground where the ticket price would be low (by NZ standards) for Samoans to afford to go.

But if they were really "committed" they could at least play the full strength Pacific Islanders in New Zealand reasonably regularly (that joke Samoan sixth choice side that got thrashed in 2008 doesn't count) and look for some way involvement of the Pacific Islanders in domestic competitions.

 

[j'nuh]

What I don't get is that Northern Hemisphere teams play each other once a year, twice occasionally. They play SH teams more frequently now. Frankly, I'm bored of watching the NH-SH clashes. It's always more exciting and passionate to watch England go up against their NH rivals. So here's a solution: intra-hemisphere matches every other year during the AIs. Sod NZ coming every year. I want to see more matches against Wales and France. NZ will then have enough time to plug the gap with matches against Samoa. "Too busy." What a pisstake. Samoa are deservedly a tier 2 team.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

there is already too many meaningless internationals, i get more excited about otago or my club team than i do about AB's "friendlies"

 

[donmcdazzle]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/7994794/All-Blacks-have-no-room-for-Pacific-tests

Poor by the NZRU, I thought considering the AIG deal they had they would be able to relax a little about what match would make the most money and do more for rugby worldwide.

Samoa playing New Zealand would be a very interesting match to watch and Samoa could compete now better than they have ever been able to before in the professional era now. No doubt the AIG All Blacks will continue to play lower ranked sides Wales, Italy and Scotland a fair few times in the next 7 years though.

If Wales and Scotland can tour the Pacific Islands, then surely New Zealand can at least host Samoa in June for a match. They claim they "are committed to supporting the islands" but that is nonsense, they don't care at all.

I'm not saying they should play a loss making match every year in Apia in a 15,000 ground where the ticket price would be low (by NZ standards) for Samoans to afford to go.

But if they were really "committed" they could at least play the full strength Pacific Islanders in New Zealand reasonably regularly (that joke Samoan sixth choice side that got thrashed in 2008 doesn't count) and look for some way involvement of the Pacific Islanders in domestic competitions.

mate our rugby system produces most of the Samoan team! We've done more for them than any other nation by miles

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

mate our rugby system produces most of the Samoan team! We've done more for them than any other nation by miles

Agreed. All bar a couple of All Blacks were born and raised in New Zealand and many who don't make the grade for the All Blacks but are still of high quality do get to play for the island teams.

Also, the NZRFU celebrated making a smaller loss than they predicted from the World Cup. They only lost $31,300,000 and have made losses in every other year of the last several operating our domestic competitions. It's not like they can willingly choose to lose more money either. AIG is just bailing them out a bit. The AIG money doesn't all come along in one year and then they get it again and again over the contract length. What they are getting each year is just a hand up off the financial floor.

All of this is because it's a real battle retaining players in New Zealand with the money being thrown at them by overseas clubs. There must be at least 400 of them playing professionally world-wide and I wouldn't mind betting it could be more. No other nation could withstand that kind of drain with limited resources and just keep their heads above water enough to go play games that generate losses.

What we do actually do for the islands is more than enough and it's insulting to say we don't care. If making money is so easy, they should make plenty themselves. It's easy after all.

 

[TRF_heineken]

What I don't get is that Northern Hemisphere teams play each other once a year, twice occasionally. They play SH teams more frequently now. Frankly, I'm bored of watching the NH-SH clashes. It's always more exciting and passionate to watch England go up against their NH rivals. So here's a solution: intra-hemisphere matches every other year during the AIs. Sod NZ coming every year. I want to see more matches against Wales and France. NZ will then have enough time to plug the gap with matches against Samoa. "Too busy." What a pisstake. Samoa are deservedly a tier 2 team.

That won't work!

1. It won't be called Autumn Internationals in the SH in November, it will be called Summer Internationals. the guys will die out of heat exhaustion, playing at temperatures above 30 degrees celcius.
2. How do you expect the teams to test themselves against good opposition who plays different styles and are being reffed with different interpretations?
3. There is and intra-hemisphere competition in the SH, called the Rugby Championship...
4. Why should teams ranked 1st, 2nd and 4th respectively in the IRB rankings lower their standards to accomodate the minority? This won't improve Rugby, it will amateurize it again.
5. teams like Samoa has now proven they can beat top opposition teams, to prove that it wasn't just a flash in the pan, they need to now do it on a constant basis, and in doing so, they will get more matches against the big guns.

 

[nickdnz]

mate our rugby system produces most of the Samoan team! We've done more for them than any other nation by miles

Yeah - Psychic Duck is aware of that though. But you are right - we certainly contribute more to those countries than anyone else. What people forget is not only do the NZRU sign PI players in both the NPC and Super Rugby - but they do so without holding any kinds of barring on them competing internationally. What I think Psychic Duck may be a less aware of (as I think many are) is that the NZRU funds teams such as Wellington Samoa Rugby team and several others, specifically built to facilitate PI players within New Zealand. Also - while it's true that we don't host PI teams for test matches as often as we could (in part because they can't often field competitive teams during June) - Samoa, Tonga and Fiji still regularly send teams to compete against NZ sides to aid them in development.

I think 7 years is longer than most New Zealander's would want to see between matches against the PI (I'm sure we'll get at least one of Fiji, Tonga or Samoa this next RWC), however as others have rightly pointed out the NZRU is pretty much an all inclusive company in the running of New Zealand rugby - many facets of which run at losses to accomidate the New Zealand public and international development. The one area in which we CAN make some money is internationals - and if I personally found out that my club (Johnsonville Rugby Football Club) - lost out on resources which the NZRU provides because of developing someone elses game - I'd be a tad peeved. But yes - seven years is certainly too long. We did play Samoa and Fiji in between the last RWC - so I thought we'd have been able to manage something similar.

On a side note; while AIG All Blacks is fun to say to milk a reaction - can we give it a rest? AIG isn't the All Blacks principal sponsor and it has no rights to the name like for example the Qantas Wallabies did/does? No one says Admiral Red Dragons or O2 England. Was funny at first - and I can see perhaps using it to make a point about financial resources of the All Blacks - but it is certainly being used by many as a tounge in cheek dig.

 

[TRF_heineken]

On a side note; while AIG All Blacks is fun to say to milk a reaction - can we give it a rest? AIG isn't the All Blacks principal sponsor and it has no rights to the name like for example the Qantas Wallabies did/does? No one says Admiral Red Dragons or O2 England. Was funny at first - and I can see perhaps using it to make a point about financial resources of the All Blacks - but it is certainly being used by many as a tounge in cheek dig.

Nah... We'll keep on going... just like the dig that most Saffas are thugs...

 

[smartcooky]

On a side note; while AIG All Blacks is fun to say to milk a reaction - can we give it a rest? AIG isn't the All Blacks principal sponsor and it has no rights to the name like for example the Qantas Wallabies did/does? No one says Admiral Red Dragons or O2 England. Was funny at first - and I can see perhaps using it to make a point about financial resources of the All Blacks - but it is certainly being used by many as a tounge in cheek dig.

I agree. Continuing use of the term is a descending arithmetic progression

Use it once and you're a wit
Use it twice and you're a half-wit
Use it three times and you're witless

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Getting in a sponsor with their name on the jersey is a very simple way of making money and I commend NZ for holding out for as long as they did. The fact that people tease (mostly intended in good spirit I might add) you guys now only highlights the fact that you have held out for so long. There is no shame in making an easy buck if the money is put to good use which I am certain it is.

 

[nickdnz]

Nah... We'll keep on going... just like the dig that most Saffas are thugs...

To be far - I genuinely don't hear that very often unless it's from a Saffa moaning about the treatment of South African's from the IRB judiciary.

Either way AIG All Blacks is a far more baseless claim - as while some South African's have acted thuggish (as many other players from other nations occasionally are) - the All Blacks have not now or ever been known as the AIG All Blacks.

Getting in a sponsor with their name on the jersey is a very simple way of making money and I commend NZ for holding out for as long as they did. The fact that people tease (mostly intended in good spirit I might add) you guys now only highlights the fact that you have held out for so long. There is no shame in making an easy buck if the money is put to good use which I am certain it is.

Yeah, I think it is mostly in good spirit and I think all Kiwi's take the ***le with a grain of salt. Regardless - for a long time we were very proud of not having a sponsor on our jersey and for many a sponsor has devalued the jersey. The ***le was perhaps funny while it was topical - but like smartcookie says the more it is used the less clever it becomes. It's referencing something that we don't especially like (even if we accept it as a necessity) about our national team - and throwing it at our faces.

It's difficult for me to express that there isn't really any hard feelings in this - I should probably include more smiley faces. Certainly may come off as a little sulky or precious which really isn't my intention. Just pointing out that the joke may have been milked for all its worth. ANYWAY - sorry to derail the thread. There is an interesting topic here which should be able to generate discussion by itself.

Does New Zealand owe more test matches to Pacific Island teams? Curiously - how many matches against the Pacific Islands does Australia have lined up as a point of comparrison? If I'm correct Australia and New Zealand both played Samoa and Fiji once in between the last Rugby World Cup?

Also if NZ did guarentee more test matches - when would it take place? In June the players can't get released. In November the All Blacks tour Europe (and it's cheaper for Samoa to play in Europe considering it means there are more nations to tour while also disturbing the NH club season less. The only likely way it would work would be All Blacks v Samoa/Fiji/Tonga while playing in a neutral venue such as Twikenham or Millenium Stadium (which wouldn't likely be profitable for anyone) or play in a smaller venue against one of the PI teams in a neutral venue for a midweek match. This may be a good idea - especially if the AB's field a midweek team, but it all depends on what the other scheduals are like - we're already seeing fatigue in a four match tour.

I personally would like to see the All Blacks dedicate at least one tour to playing four developing teams. I think if the All Blacks went on the NH tour but played four tests - one against Georgia (which has a big stadium I would think would sell out), a visiting team for a midweek game whether it be a PI nations or a team like Canada/USA/Japan who would also likely be in Europe) and finally two tests against two teams like France/England/Ireland/Wales. I think an option like that could actually be commercially viable, probably not exhaust players any more than the current tour - and do good for the global game. Unfortunately I don't think it's an option the NZRU have considered.

I do believe the NZRU has done plenty for the PI nations in rugby - certainly more than other nations based on a development standpoint (providing players and accomidating their international agendas etc). It may just be that it playing more test matches just isn't fesible.

 

[admartian]

lol yeah what was the point of getting AIG if it's still all about the money and not expanding rugby?

Facepalm NZRU.

 

[donmcdazzle]

lol yeah what was the point of getting AIG if it's still all about the money and not expanding rugby?

Facepalm NZRU.

It was only ever all about the money. They're not going to sign a sponsorship contract which devalues our jersey to benefit other countries. They have a business to run. Charity isn't part of the business when you're making losses consistently.

 

[admartian]

It was only ever all about the money. They're not going to sign a sponsorship contract which devalues our jersey to benefit other countries. They have a business to run. Charity isn't part of the business when you're making losses consistently.

No. But growing the brand/league to a more widespread audience only benefits everybody. We don't to turn rugby into cricket now.

We want it to be more like the NFL, or FIFA to a lesser extent (as examples of organisations that we should aspire the IRB to be).

 

[William18]

lol yeah what was the point of getting AIG if it's still all about the money and not expanding rugby?

Facepalm NZRU.

AIG hasn't made the financial problems of the NZRU disappear. AIG has basically made up break even. We start playing against the PI's we probably start losing money again.

 

[William18]

No. But growing the brand/league to a more widespread audience only benefits everybody. We don't to turn rugby into cricket now.

We want it to be more like the NFL, or FIFA to a lesser extent (as examples of organisations that we should aspire the IRB to be).

A strange post. The NFL does nothing to spread their game worldwide. Also are you talking about the NZRU or the IRB?

NZRU - New Zealand Rugby Union has the responsibility to grow and govern rugby in New Zealand.

IRB - International Rugby Board has the responsibility to grow and govern rugby around the world. They do a fantastic job at this too! The world cup money goes to spreading the game around the world. The IRB have been doing an absolute fantastic job and I think they are one of the best governing bodies around the world.

Also playing in the Pacific Islands does not spread the game. The Pacific Islands will not grow. If we want the game to grow we should go to Southern Africa, the Americas and Central Europe.

 

[admartian]

A strange post. The NFL does nothing to spread their game worldwide. Also are you talking about the NZRU or the IRB?

NZRU - New Zealand Rugby Union has the responsibility to grow and govern rugby in New Zealand.

IRB - International Rugby Board has the responsibility to grow and govern rugby around the world. They do a fantastic job at this too! The world cup money goes to spreading the game around the world. The IRB have been doing an absolute fantastic job and I think they are one of the best governing bodies around the world.

Also playing in the Pacific Islands does not spread the game. The Pacific Islands will not grow. If we want the game to grow we should go to Southern Africa, the Americas and Central Europe.

RE NFL spreading the game. Yes they do - they've been in China and the UK. Also started making games free for Internationals to watch on NFL.com.


My point simply was that if they're not doing this for PI nations then I don't see them extending an olive branch to the other non-traditional markets. I also don't see the point in cutting the IRB or NZRU any slack. They need to follow the mandate of spreading the game, do not need to be apologising for them when they do't do so imo.

 

[donmcdazzle]

RE NFL spreading the game. Yes they do - they've been in China and the UK. Also started making games free for Internationals to watch on NFL.com.


My point simply was that if they're not doing this for PI nations then I don't see them extending an olive branch to the other non-traditional markets. I also don't see the point in cutting the IRB or NZRU any slack. They need to follow the mandate of spreading the game, do not need to be apologising for them when they do't do so imo.

It isn't the NZRU's job to spread the game, not sure why you think this is their responsibility. They have to worry solely about their own back yard. IRB are the one's in charge of spreading the gospel. They've done this far better than the NFL by the way. One game per year in London does not make the NFL a global game. It is one of the most US-only sports there is along with Nascar.

 

[William18]

RE NFL spreading the game. Yes they do - they've been in China and the UK. Also started making games free for Internationals to watch on NFL.com.


My point simply was that if they're not doing this for PI nations then I don't see them extending an olive branch to the other non-traditional markets. I also don't see the point in cutting the IRB or NZRU any slack. They need to follow the mandate of spreading the game, do not need to be apologising for them when they do't do so imo.

They have played games but what do they do in the grassroots? I know one team plays a game a year at Wembley but that seems to me to be about the money.

The IRB can only do so much. They have limited resources. How much money does the NFL earn each year? I think that pretty much all of the IRB's World Cup profits going to developing nations is spreading the game. I don't really see how the IRB could do too much more. Most of the IRB money goes to the grass roots and it isn't obvious when development is being made in that respect.

 

[admartian]

It isn't the NZRU's job to spread the game, not sure why you think this is their responsibility. They have to worry solely about their own back yard. IRB are the one's in charge of spreading the gospel. They've done this far better than the NFL by the way. One game per year in London does not make the NFL a global game. It is one of the most US-only sports there is along with Nascar.

lol no one said it was a global game - but they're trying.

Look I don't think it's anything for anyone to get worked up about to say "The NZRU could do a lot better". Shouldn't say anything about anyone on here.

They have played games but what do they do in the grassroots? I know one team plays a game a year at Wembley but that seems to me to be about the money.

The IRB can only do so much. They have limited resources. How much money does the NFL earn each year? I think that pretty much all of the IRB's World Cup profits going to developing nations is spreading the game. I don't really see how the IRB could do too much more. Most of the IRB money goes to the grass roots and it isn't obvious when development is being made in that respect.

No it isn't wholly, anyway but it is partly (only if they don;t want it to turn into cricket).

If you want rugby to turn into cricket then fine, NZRU/IRB can keep stalling on these things (though the IRB is doing a better job, while imo - without hurting anyone's feelings on here that may or may not be related to Steve Tew) I think the NZRU is being the Indian Cricket Board. As in; "you play ball with us and not the other way around".

It's a shame, but it is what it is. Not really sure what else can be said about it without them getting butthurt.