An interesting read on the state of Pacific Island Rugby

Link

. . . there are currently 632 players eligible to play at test level for Island nations. Of them, 272 play rugby overseas. But only 198 are actually available to play for Samoa, Tonga or Fiji.


BY THE NUMBERS

Professional players of Pacific Island descent:

UK & Ireland: 78
Japan: 76
Australian Super Rugby teams: 36
New Zealand Super Rugby teams: 60
NPC: 141
Italy & Romania: 9

Total: 632

Pacific Islanders playing international rugby:

Tonga: 69
Samoa: 63
Fiji: 66
New Zealand (including sevens) 40
Japan: 14
Australia: 8
England (including sevens) 5
France: 3
USA: 2
Wales: 1
Scotland: 1

Total: 272

* As of late October

There are frequent debates on this forum about the release of PI players, or lack thereof. The founding of a new players body to help with this seems to be a logical and productive step forward to help their availability year round. A point in the article that suggests that the need for a benefactor to basically come and under write PI rugby is needed or they will continue to struggle. I thought on the whole the article was interesting and some people might be interested. Also, who is the PI player, player for Scotland?

This was done yesterday.

Please check the almost identical article:


https://www.606v2.com/t50197-what-should-rugby-do-for-the-pacific-island-nations

Sean Maitland's mother is half Samoan half maori. He is Quade Cooper's cousin.

And Fay/Richewhite were underwriting Samoan rugby until they gained a larger sponsor.

Well, this post can be removed

Meh. Change it into something else.

How about a whinge about Polynesians coming over here and taking all the rugby jobs?

Or how will NZ find ways of keeping ahead now that NH teams have also worked out how to cheat properly in the rucks, obstruction etc with out getting caught...

Oh just what the terms were in the £1.5 million underhander that the RFU gave to the NZRU to "finalise arrangements" for the fateful 2012 England v All Blacks test?

Ah that was just a little bonus to pay for the AB's trip...we know the NZRU can barely afford to.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Oh just what the terms were in the £1.5 million underhander that the RFU gave to the NZRU to "finalise arrangements" for the fateful 2012 England v All Blacks test?

Are you suggesting that the All Blacks would match fix? Pretty serious stuff. They wouldn't do that would they? I know they cheat on the pitch but to match fix for a financial benefit? Oh the horror, think of the children!

HammerofThunor wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Oh just what the terms were in the £1.5 million underhander that the RFU gave to the NZRU to "finalise arrangements" for the fateful 2012 England v All Blacks test?

Are you suggesting that the All Blacks would match fix? Pretty serious stuff. They wouldn't do that would they? I know they cheat on the pitch but to match fix for a financial benefit? Oh the horror, think of the children!

Who said anything about match fixing? That's a serious allegation. I hope you have some proof!

I was merely wondering what proportion of that the RFU paid to ensure the All Blacks performed the Haka?

I imagine the RFU are recouping the cost by bumping the price of RWC tickets to see England.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Oh just what the terms were in the £1.5 million underhander that the RFU gave to the NZRU to "finalise arrangements" for the fateful 2012 England v All Blacks test?

Are you suggesting that the All Blacks would match fix? Pretty serious stuff. They wouldn't do that would they? I know they cheat on the pitch but to match fix for a financial benefit? Oh the horror, think of the children!

Who said anything about match fixing? That's a serious allegation. I hope you have some proof!

I was merely wondering what proportion of that the RFU paid to ensure the All Blacks performed the Haka?

I imagine the RFU are recouping the cost by bumping the price of RWC tickets to see England.

I didn't say anyone was match fixing. I was asking you if you were suggesting they were match fixing. I'm glad to hear you're not. That would be a black mark they could never shake off.

EDIT: And England don't need to recoup the cost. We're very wealthy

HammerofThunor wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Oh just what the terms were in the £1.5 million underhander that the RFU gave to the NZRU to "finalise arrangements" for the fateful 2012 England v All Blacks test?

Are you suggesting that the All Blacks would match fix? Pretty serious stuff. They wouldn't do that would they? I know they cheat on the pitch but to match fix for a financial benefit? Oh the horror, think of the children!

Who said anything about match fixing? That's a serious allegation. I hope you have some proof!

I was merely wondering what proportion of that the RFU paid to ensure the All Blacks performed the Haka?

I imagine the RFU are recouping the cost by bumping the price of RWC tickets to see England.

I didn't say anyone was match fixing. I was asking you if you were suggesting they were match fixing. I'm glad to hear you're not. That would be a black mark they could never shake off.

EDIT: And England don't need to recoup the cost. We're very wealthy

So just mindless profiteering at the expense of fans for 2015 then? Or perhaps currying favour in the IRB with a bumper return?

No we're just helping the IRB recoup the money lost through the last WC...

GloriousEmpire wrote:So just mindless profiteering at the expense of fans for 2015 then? Or perhaps currying favour in the IRB with a bumper return?

Bit of both. What else are peasants for if not taking money off? And unfortunately everyone hates us so the only way they could host the games is massive payouts.

GeordieFalcon wrote:No we're just helping the IRB recoup the money lost through the last WC...

Crikey, they didn't bet on England again did they?

No they bet that a WC in NZ would make them money...

GeordieFalcon wrote:No they bet that a WC in NZ would make them money...

 
 
Just like when England bet against themselves hedged their player bonus scheme. I believe, as the RFU explain this one away, it's called "hedging".

Well there wasnt much point betting for England...or any other country for that matter...a World Cup in NZ...the IRB / NZRU would have ensured NZ had won it before the first whistle had even been blown...

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well there wasnt much point betting for England...or any other country for that matter...a World Cup in NZ...the IRB / NZRU would have ensured NZ had won it before the first whistle had even been blown...

Are you making a match fixing allegation?

I love the British press. With the exception of the rugby reporting. I think part of the problem is, like many stories only half of it is actually discussed in detail in Fleet Street. Awarding cups is political (Just look at 2015 where yet another game will be played in Cardiff). No one suggests that 2011 was any different. But there were some solid strategic arguments for putting the cup in NZ.

Japan had issues with their proposals, even the godfather of Japanese rugby expressed concern. One of the key issues raised about NZ is always cash. It turns out NZ turned out a profit above forecast, in spit of the global recession. It's not as bad as people make out. Total revenue was about 142 million pounds last time I looked. It generated more profit than the others with the exception of France 2007 (and it was within 3% of their figure).

blackcanelion wrote:I love the British press. With the exception of the rugby reporting. I think part of the problem is, like many stories only half of it is actually discussed in detail in Fleet Street. Awarding cups is political (Just look at 2015 where yet another game will be played in Cardiff). No one suggests that 2011 was any different. But there were some solid strategic arguments for putting the cup in NZ.

Japan had issues with their proposals, even the godfather of Japanese rugby expressed concern. One of the key issues raised about NZ is always cash. It turns out NZ turned out a profit above forecast, in spit of the global recession. It's not as bad as people make out. Total revenue was about 142 million pounds last time I looked. It generated more profit than the others with the exception of France 2007 (and it was within 3% of their figure).

There's nothing on Fleet Street but Starbucks and hedge funds. But good point.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well there wasnt much point betting for England...or any other country for that matter...a World Cup in NZ...the IRB / NZRU would have ensured NZ had won it before the first whistle had even been blown...

Are you making a match fixing allegation?

Your the only on this thread whos mentioned match fixing........

GloriousEmpire wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:I love the British press. With the exception of the rugby reporting. I think part of the problem is, like many stories only half of it is actually discussed in detail in Fleet Street. Awarding cups is political (Just look at 2015 where yet another game will be played in Cardiff). No one suggests that 2011 was any different. But there were some solid strategic arguments for putting the cup in NZ.

Japan had issues with their proposals, even the godfather of Japanese rugby expressed concern. One of the key issues raised about NZ is always cash. It turns out NZ turned out a profit above forecast, in spit of the global recession. It's not as bad as people make out. Total revenue was about 142 million pounds last time I looked. It generated more profit than the others with the exception of France 2007 (and it was within 3% of their figure).

There's nothing on Fleet Street but Starbucks and hedge funds. But good point.

Edited: Good debate GE, but im retracting that. Im not getting personal about anyone or a nationality. I have lots of Aussie friends etc.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well there wasnt much point betting for England...or any other country for that matter...a World Cup in NZ...the IRB / NZRU would have ensured NZ had won it before the first whistle had even been blown...

Are you making a match fixing allegation?

Your the only on this thread whos mentioned match fixing........

How is saying that the outcome was assured before the first whistle not an overt accusation of match fixing?

Tell you what, I'll ask a moderator and if they think it constitutes match fixing then that will be impartial.

Or you could retract it?

Nope not retracting that!

And i never alluded to match fixing....anymore than you did previously:

Oh just what the terms were in the £1.5 million underhander that the RFU gave to the NZRU to "finalise arrangements" for the fateful 2012 England v All Blacks test?.

Funny your so happy to throw out allegations and diss other teams adn gloat about winning etc, but the second it comes back your all defensive...typical bad winner / bad loser.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Nope not retracting that!

And i never alluded to match fixing....anymore than you did previously:

Oh just what the terms were in the £1.5 million underhander that the RFU gave to the NZRU to "finalise arrangements" for the fateful 2012 England v All Blacks test?.

Funny your so happy to throw out allegations and diss other teams adn gloat about winning etc, but the second it comes back your all defensive...typical bad winner / bad loser.

As I already clarified, I was referring to the proportion of the cost that related to performance of the Haka. In no way is that an allegation of match fixing. Whereas what you've said is overt.

Alright, I'm going to ask an impartial adjudicator.

Do the All Blacks get paid for doing the Haka now? I thought it was part of their heritage etc. Seeing as they have to be paid to do it it doesn't seem that important to them so maybe it should be banned

I think you have to pay addidas for the rights for the haka (TM) to be shown.

I thought the Haka was a cultural thing? So they're getting paid to do it?

Now i understand all the fuss when suggestions to ban it came about....£1.5 million for 30 seconds work, thats not bad going...

Why pay Addidas?

Bathman_in_London wrote:I think you have to pay addidas for the rights for the haka (TM) to be shown.

Another bit of Shrewd NZRU business eh? Have to pay to perform your own cultural war dance/challenge...you couldnt write it!

I fear my sense of humour doesn't translate well onto the screen! Addidas don't get royalties!

I think actually somebody did try and copyright parts of the haka but the attempt failed.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I fear my sense of humour doesn't translate well onto the screen! Addidas don't get royalties!

I think actually somebody did try and copyright parts of the haka but the attempt failed.

 
Just last year, Ngati Toa, who's chief Te Rauparaha composed the Ka Mate Haka made famous by the All Blacks received a NZ$75M settlement under the Treaty of Waitangi in recognition of their creative ownership. Furthermore, the use of Ka Mate for commercial gain in advertising (such as those produced by Adidas, AIG, BSkyB, and so forth) requires attribution to be made.
 
This is really no different than an artist protecting his rights to a song used in advertising.
 
Personally I think this is another thing NZers have to be thankful for the strength of Maori culture and the protection available (albeit unnecessarily exhaustingly) via the treaty process. Other things might include the protection of the shore line from  acquisition by foreign commercial interests and the retention of fishing rights for indigenous people. If they can also do something about the proposed deep sea oil drilling then that would just be a bonus.

Ah just me being a dumba$$ mate...been one of those days started with my shower exploding and just got worse from there...hence why im actually bothering to post on this thread instead of just ignoring GE...as im in one today  

Brings so much more light to

"The tradition needs to be honoured properly if we're going to do it," the All Blacks captain said in a statement.

"If the other team wants to mess around, we'll just do the haka in the shed (changing room)."

Everyone thought McCaw meant culture and history by tradition but he meant being paid to do it!

This is a joke isnt it? They're not actually paid to do it?

Coleman wrote:This is a joke isnt it? They're not actually paid to do it?

Oh yeah, definitely. Some senior AB's get paid more to do the Haka than play the game.

Look at Piri Weepu for example. Selected for a year and a half just to lead the Haka. It's very important.

You do go the whole hog don't you GE! All to get away from a throwaway joke you can't back down from!

Joke? Throw away? Backdown?

I know not the meaning of these words.

It was bathman what done it!