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

[William18]

You are still assuming that the NZRU has some sort of responsibility to grow the game internationally when that is the IRB's job. We will have to agree to disagree as to whether the IRB is doing a good job developing the game. Even if the IRB are doing a bad job, it isn't our responsibility to pick up the slack.

I'm not really getting the cricket comparison either? Cricket would have far more players world wide than rugby so it is arguably a more popular sport. Cricket also has more elite nations (8 that are super competitive). In rugby we have 5 who are super competitive but about another 7-8 who are semi competitive. Cricket also spends a fair amount of money on development. Afghanistan is one example of a growing cricketing country. I think cricket has less success than rugby at growing their game is because it takes a long time to play, needs a lot of equipment and involves a lot of subtleties. Governance may have something to do with it, too.

As for the NZRU acting like the BCCI well that is very different. The BCCI basically helps fund cricket around the world. The rest of the world only needs our brand, not our money so does not have to listen to us.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

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.

I have to agree with donmcdazzle and William18 here. Also, this whole rugby turning into cricket is a completely irrelevant and non-specific analogy. What are you trying to say? It's a 9-10 team international sport that isn't working hard to include smaller teams in future competitions or helping them develop, so they can keep what money there is tied up in the aforementioned 9-10 nations? If so, it's largely irrelevant, it's too far away from whats going on in rugby and too thin a comparison to stand up. The IRB is working hard with smaller national unions and much harder than it appears the ICC are. There are more teams beginning to do well in international rugby, more competitions have been springing up over the years for the smaller nations. The fact that Tonga, Samoa and Fiji can play Japan, USA and Canada and will (when New Zealand) can afford it again be able to play the Junior ABs is doing more for them than coming over here or us going over there for a hiding.

There is work being done to assist these teams, it's indisputable and it's coming from the direction it should, the IRB. We are only really supposed to have a good working association with the island unions and that's exactly what we do have. You have just as much reason to say that Australia, Argentina and (the wealthy) South Africa should go over and play these unions once or twice? Do they? Have they?

You wouldn't accuse Argentina of having the money to tour the islands regularly, but financially we are closer to them than we are to South Africa and we're probably closer to them than Australia. We are BROKE. What part of that is eluding people? We don't have money to throw away. The IRB doesn't want us to be broke either, it's a ridiculous situation for the world champions to be in. Yet you and others have the audacity to say that we're mean, self interested and stingy? I guess it's impossible to just throw your hands up and admit your wrong, because this is the internet and it's just not the done thing.

The only thing that the IRB can do to help New Zealand AND the islands that it's not doing is a major one. They should bring in a development/transfer fee for first time transfers of a player who has been taken away from his national unions domestic competitions. For example if a player coming through has been developed with more than 12-15 years of rugby within his home union, then the home union should receive a transfer fee of up to 50% of what they are signing a player for over a 3 year period. If the player is over 25 then that should gradually decline to a floor of 25%. If the IRB did that, you watch the perceived poaching around the world slow a little and the ones who're still signed anyway should net the home union some recompense. That's what should really happen.

As far as the rest of it, it's too harsh to treat New Zealand like bullies to our neighbours, we're not in a position to do anything and even if we were, it's not our job.



As for allthis stuff about calling people potentially related to Steve Tew and butthurt, that's just a insulting way to avoid the specifics of the issue. It shows an empty cart from which you are peddling.

 

[admartian]

The only thing that the IRB can do to help New Zealand AND the islands that it's not doing is a major one. They should bring in a development/transfer fee for first time transfers of a player who has been taken away from his national unions domestic competitions. For example if a player coming through has been developed with more than 12-15 years of rugby within his home union, then the home union should receive a transfer fee of up to 50% of what they are signing a player for over a 3 year period. If the player is over 25 then that should gradually decline to a floor of 25%. If the IRB did that, you watch the perceived poaching around the world slow a little and the ones who're still signed anyway should net the home union some recompense. That's what should really happen.

As far as the rest of it, it's too harsh to treat New Zealand like bullies to our neighbours, we're not in a position to do anything and even if we were, it's not our job.



As for allthis stuff about calling people potentially related to Steve Tew and butthurt, that's just a insulting way to avoid the specifics of the issue. It shows an empty cart from which you are peddling.

Was a tongue in cheek comment mate, nothing meant by it.

I don't know why this is all so hostile for you guys though. I was simply voicing that I don't think (imo ) that they're actively pursuing anything. In either case, I don't have a horse in this race so if something isn't the case then it isn't.

No biggie. :lol:


I do agree with that transfer thing though - would give something back to those nations.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Was a tongue in cheek comment mate, nothing meant by it.

I don't know why this is all so hostile for you guys though. I was simply voicing that I don't think (imo ) that they're actively pursuing anything. In either case, I don't have a horse in this race so if something isn't the case then it isn't.

No biggie. :lol:


I do agree with that transfer thing though - would give something back to those nations.

Apologies if I seemed hostile or frustrated, but was just being as direct as I could influenced by haste and sometimes you don't choose the best words in haste. That haste was brought on by getting 1/2 of the way through my post and a baby waking up and wanting fed, so crammed that last half into about a minute and a bit. Which is pretty quick for me.

I think the only thing that concerns guys like donmcdazzle and William18 directly is that they (and I) seem to appear to most as being only capable of defending NZRU and that's all we'll do. Not so, they've made some stupid decisions in the past and other unions have been more correct than them on other issues. It's just that in this case the NZRU has nothing, no wealth to spread around. What these matches against PI teams do is:

Lose money (quite a lot)
Show them how far away they are from the big three.
Give them a taste of a match at home that they just can't get regularly due to those same financial logistics at present.


Why couldn't the IRB maybe one day put up a competition for 8 teams outside of the top 8 and put up some really good prize money (and the opportunity to host bigger games in their home over the following 4 years)? It'd have Scotland, Italy, Fiji, Samoa, USA, Canada, Tonga, and Japan. There'd be a lot of prestige to play for along with securing some bigger scheduled matches for the future. The prize money would help in development in all countries except the corrupt Samoan union. That's where honest players like Schwalger can't speak up about all the noses in the trough without getting in trouble. A lot of IRB money has disappeared there.

 

[nickdnz]

The only thing that the IRB can do to help New Zealand AND the islands that it's not doing is a major one. They should bring in a development/transfer fee for first time transfers of a player who has been taken away from his national unions domestic competitions. For example if a player coming through has been developed with more than 12-15 years of rugby within his home union, then the home union should receive a transfer fee of up to 50% of what they are signing a player for over a 3 year period. If the player is over 25 then that should gradually decline to a floor of 25%. If the IRB did that, you watch the perceived poaching around the world slow a little and the ones who're still signed anyway should net the home union some recompense. That's what should really happen.

Was a tongue in cheek comment mate, nothing meant by it.
I don't know why this is all so hostile for you guys though. I was simply voicing that I don't think (imo ) that they're actively pursuing anything. In either case, I don't have a horse in this race so if something isn't the case then it isn't.
No biggie. :lol:
I do agree with that transfer thing though - would give something back to those nations.

I don't see how the transfer fee would benefit PI Nations in any way shape or form.

Half the Samoan team have been taken from the New Zealand development system - I can't think of any that are the other way around. It would benefit New Zealand tremendiously - as we lose players hand over fist to forign markets, but not really the other way around. It would also disincentive forign markets from signing PI players - which without a professional competition themselves relies heavily on forigners developing their players in professional setting (not to mention the national economic significance of forign player salaries).

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I don't see how the transfer fee would benefit PI Nations in any way shape or form.

Half the Samoan team have been taken from the New Zealand development system - I can't think of any that are the other way around. It would benefit New Zealand tremendiously - as we lose players hand over fist to forign markets, but not really the other way around. It would also disincentive forign markets from signing PI players - which without a professional competition themselves relies heavily on forigners developing their players in professional setting (not to mention the national economic significance of forign player salaries).

I think your wrong here Nick. Any signing fee is related to the market value of the player. Players growing up in the islands do exist and if they are good enough the way things are at this very minute, they'll be signed (with nothing going to their union). They are generally already valued lower than players that have been raised in New Zealand. Still, there are a few signed every year, partly because it's cheaper than getting a New Zealand raised and trained one. The raw talent is recognized and signed, then trained. This would actually happen more often, because if there's a big signing transfer fee for a New Zealand player and a lower one and a lower overall price to the player themselves to get a raw but good rookie from an island union, then that'd happen more.

The economics of just getting players for what they obviously feel as cheap right now (from New Zealand) would start to not look as appealing and the scouts would have to look elsewhere. Where? The islands. All of this would generate revenue for those unions. Then certain NH clubs could possibly hold training camps down there occasionally to get a first look in on certain players, hold little local sevens/15's comps to find the talent in the islands. Anything could happen. Much more so than what exists now.

 

[nickdnz]

I think your wrong here Nick. Any signing fee is related to the market value of the player. Players growing up in the islands do exist and if they are good enough the way things are at this very minute, they'll be signed (with nothing going to their union). They are generally already valued lower than players that have been raised in New Zealand. Still, there are a few signed every year, partly because it's cheaper than getting a New Zealand raised and trained one. The raw talent is recognized and signed, then trained. This would actually happen more often, because if there's a big signing transfer fee for a New Zealand player and a lower one and a lower overall price to the player themselves to get a raw but good rookie from an island union, then that'd happen more.

The economics of just getting players for what they obviously feel as cheap right now (from New Zealand) would start to not look as appealing and the scouts would have to look elsewhere. Where? The islands. All of this would generate revenue for those unions. Then certain NH clubs could possibly hold training camps down there occasionally to get a first look in on certain players, hold little local sevens/15's comps to find the talent in the islands. Anything could happen. Much more so than what exists now.

But surely Samoa would be subjected to paying for Samoan eligable players developed in New Zealand (which is over half the squad). The market value for example of Kahn Fotoali'i or Paul Williams would be much more than the Samoan Rugby Union could afford. Unless this is restricted to clubs and not to unions?

 

[Zed]

Why couldn't the IRB maybe one day put up a competition for 8 teams outside of the top 8 and put up some really good prize money .

I actually found some of the weaker teams at the WC quite entertaining, Romaina, USA etc I think maybe something like a mini world cup for teams outside the top 8/top 10 would be a great idea.

 

[Shaggy]

Unfortunately (in answer to the original post) it's the way that the international rugby world is, with the need for revenue, and the reciprical arangement of NH teams touring in June, and SH teams in November. In this respect, the PI teams are probably in the wrong hemishpere if they want to play NZ in June. Maybe a game during the November tour might be a better option, as the PI teams seem to have their best players at this time, and number of tickets sold to the matches could also be greater ... just an idea

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

But surely Samoa would be subjected to paying for Samoan eligable players developed in New Zealand (which is over half the squad). The market value for example of Kahn Fotoali'i or Paul Williams would be much more than the Samoan Rugby Union could afford. Unless this is restricted to clubs and not to unions?

Well, nothing I said would effect international eligibility at all. You are eligible by birth in a country, parentage, recent ancestry, and length of habitation. So, in this case I suppose I'd say that this policy would effect anything below international eligibility and of course yes, that'd mostly mean clubs. I don't for one minute think that clubs would disappear as a threat, it'd just make development and training (mostly in relation to the formative years of a player up to 25 years of age) a commercial reality, rather than an ignored one. Intellectual property law exists, I'd imagine it's only a matter of time before development and training gets it's day. Also, all of this would only effect contracted players or those who'd in their teens signed (with parental consent) a NZRU development contract (or contract with whichever union the player grew up, developed with).

After all, all of the players going overseas from Australia, Argentina, South Africa, Samoa, Tonga, NZ, Fiji, France etc are effectively short-changing those who put all the initial faith and training into them. What was sewn somewhere is being harvested elsewhere.

I actually found some of the weaker teams at the WC quite entertaining, Romaina, USA etc I think maybe something like a mini world cup for teams outside the top 8/top 10 would be a great idea.

Yeah, I really think many people enjoyed seeing the smaller teams go at it in the world cup and I definitely imagined how much fun it'd be to have the second tier of 8 play off for a good prize in their own competition. I think it'd get a decent amount of tv money too, because it wouldn't be as much of a lop-sided comp.

I mean knowing that they were playing for decent 1st/2nd/3rd money and that the reward would also be some lucrative opportunities to negotiate to play stronger unions more frequently for a few years, it'd for sure be a case of them going all out to win it.

 

[Feicarsinn]

New Zealand will play Tonga in the next World Cup. Yawn.

I don't see why New Zealand owe the PI's anything. The islands clearly get more out of NZ than the All Blacks do out of them.

 

[William18]

Apologies if I seemed hostile or frustrated, but was just being as direct as I could influenced by haste and sometimes you don't choose the best words in haste. That haste was brought on by getting 1/2 of the way through my post and a baby waking up and wanting fed, so crammed that last half into about a minute and a bit. Which is pretty quick for me.

I think the only thing that concerns guys like donmcdazzle and William18 directly is that they (and I) seem to appear to most as being only capable of defending NZRU and that's all we'll do. Not so, they've made some stupid decisions in the past and other unions have been more correct than them on other issues. It's just that in this case the NZRU has nothing, no wealth to spread around. What these matches against PI teams do is:

Lose money (quite a lot)
Show them how far away they are from the big three.
Give them a taste of a match at home that they just can't get regularly due to those same financial logistics at present.


Why couldn't the IRB maybe one day put up a competition for 8 teams outside of the top 8 and put up some really good prize money (and the opportunity to host bigger games in their home over the following 4 years)? It'd have Scotland, Italy, Fiji, Samoa, USA, Canada, Tonga, and Japan. There'd be a lot of prestige to play for along with securing some bigger scheduled matches for the future. The prize money would help in development in all countries except the corrupt Samoan union. That's where honest players like Schwalger can't speak up about all the noses in the trough without getting in trouble. A lot of IRB money has disappeared there.

This is a fantastic idea. It could be held two years out from a world cup and I think would really help all these nations out. The logistics of it would be difficult but it would be great to see it happen.

 

[Peat]

This is a fantastic idea. It could be held two years out from a world cup and I think would really help all these nations out. The logistics of it would be difficult but it would be great to see it happen.

Would clash with the Lions tour; would make getting Scotland/Wales difficult.

The only thing that the IRB can do to help New Zealand AND the islands that it's not doing is a major one. They should bring in a development/transfer fee for first time transfers of a player who has been taken away from his national unions domestic competitions. For example if a player coming through has been developed with more than 12-15 years of rugby within his home union, then the home union should receive a transfer fee of up to 50% of what they are signing a player for over a 3 year period. If the player is over 25 then that should gradually decline to a floor of 25%. If the IRB did that, you watch the perceived poaching around the world slow a little and the ones who're still signed anyway should net the home union some recompense. That's what should really happen.

I'm no lawyer, but I feel reasonably certain that this would collapse the first moment someone chose to challenge it in a court of law. The Bosman in football would seem to be a very obvious precedent; if they are not contracted to you, then you cannot restrain them from plying their trade elsewhere.

And frankly, I hope that would happen. I appreciate that there is no shortage of justice to your suggestion. But I would rather commit that lesser evil than invite the madness of transfer fees which have helped to blight football so much. And I say that as someone who believes England would benefit from such a ruling.

I'm also somewhat skeptical about how useful it would be to the Pacific Islands. A tiny amount of money - most South Sea Islanders aren't signed for megabucks on their first contract to say the least - vs a disincentive for other nations to give their players exposure to a high standard of domestic rugby. A tiny one, true, but still there.

 

[William18]

Would clash with the Lions tour; would make getting Scotland/Wales difficult.



I'm no lawyer, but I feel reasonably certain that this would collapse the first moment someone chose to challenge it in a court of law. The Bosman in football would seem to be a very obvious precedent; if they are not contracted to you, then you cannot restrain them from plying their trade elsewhere.

And frankly, I hope that would happen. I appreciate that there is no shortage of justice to your suggestion. But I would rather commit that lesser evil than invite the madness of transfer fees which have helped to blight football so much. And I say that as someone who believes England would benefit from such a ruling.

I'm also somewhat skeptical about how useful it would be to the Pacific Islands. A tiny amount of money - most South Sea Islanders aren't signed for megabucks on their first contract to say the least - vs a disincentive for other nations to give their players exposure to a high standard of domestic rugby. A tiny one, true, but still there.

Scotland and Wales wouldn't be there. They aren't developing nations.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I'm no lawyer, but I feel reasonably certain that this would collapse the first moment someone chose to challenge it in a court of law. The Bosman in football would seem to be a very obvious precedent; if they are not contracted to you, then you cannot restrain them from plying their trade elsewhere.

And frankly, I hope that would happen. I appreciate that there is no shortage of justice to your suggestion. But I would rather commit that lesser evil than invite the madness of transfer fees which have helped to blight football so much. And I say that as someone who believes England would benefit from such a ruling.

I'm also somewhat skeptical about how useful it would be to the Pacific Islands. A tiny amount of money - most South Sea Islanders aren't signed for megabucks on their first contract to say the least - vs a disincentive for other nations to give their players exposure to a high standard of domestic rugby. A tiny one, true, but still there.

Two things. I'm talking about contracting these players, so yeah it wouldn't fall over in court. It'd be a contract which basically says that you are being developed as a player with a view to national honours, that you understand and acknowledge the value of that training and advancement, that you agree to not being able to sign a contract with an overseas union or club for services outside of international eligibility, without the interested party agreeing to pay a first time transfer fee of a proportion reflecting the investment of the home rugby union. I'd say it'd have a fair chance of standing up. It wouldn't be for every kid in the country, but probably would come into play when kids start showing representational abilities at age grade levels.

Also, as far as you being skeptical about how useful it would be to the Pacific Islands. I'm afraid it would be very useful. Players in New Zealand competitions would command a much higher transfer fee (in general) than an island player with a lesser developed competition. If you could choose between these circumstances, you might go the island player:

Let's say for arguments sake that the transfer fee for players at 23 years old is 30%

New Zealand 23 year old player (Potential overall international level rating) 8.6 - You negotiate a 3 year fee of NZ $630,000 - Transfer fee - NZ $189,000 = NZ $819,0000
Fijian 23 year old player (Potential overall international level rating) 7.8 - You negotiate a 3 year fee of NZ $255,000 - Transfer fee $76,500 = NZ $331,500.

I'm pretty sure that the Fijian union could certainly do with that money. Also, with how much over the top money is currently going to players, I'm pretty sure that the clubs can afford it now. What I'm saying is that many more island players will be watched and scouted if there are bargains available and then slowly, but surely the price would go up, like any limited commodity.

After some time, some of the clubs would probably foster closer relations with some of the islands, offer coaching camps and clinics which benefits both. Honestly, this would be a real winner for them in the longer term.