RugbyRebels

cashead wrote:This isn't a revolutionary restructure for test rugby to take it into the future, it's a clear move to ring-fence test rugby into the haves and the have-nots, leaving the latter to scrap amongst themselves into what is pretty much a desolate wasteland, setting up those territories to be scouted and plundered for talent by the Tier One sides (funny how the European teams have started fielding some Pasifika players here and there, isn't it?) and a move to hobble the Pacific Island sides, because those brown motherfuckers had the temerity to compete against and compare well against the Home Nations sides.

I think you'll find it's not the Home Nations that are pushing for this!

Frankly, I think it's dead in the water from the start. The sheer scale of the public antipathy to it from players and fans alike has torpedoed it before it could even begin, and good riddance to the stupid idea. Like you said, the existing structure is a long way from perfect, but this is in no way a solution to any of the problems. Aside from how to make NZ and Australia more money in the short-term, of course.

Puja

It's about money, sales, nothing else matters. It's a product. I feel so disillusioned, does anyone have a good new illusion?

cashead wrote:No, I don't think the Home Nations would be pushing for it because I don't think they can possibly be that short-sighted, even if they would benefit from having an entirely new crop of players at their disposal that would be dying to play some test rugby.

It's also occurred to me that it destroys any possibility of a Grand Slam tour by the SH sides as well, which is still seen as a serious achievement down here.

However, if you look at how World Rugby, and the IRB as they were once known, has treated the Pacific Island teams, it does paint a pretty damning portrait, especially around World Cup time.

Oh, they're absolutely that short sighted, but there's no financial advantage to them.

Puja

It also seems to depend on there not ever being any measures taken to curb fossil fuel emissions, which would no doubt jack up the costs. Of course, perhaps they're counting rising sea levels to put paid to those islanders' tendencies to make world cups interesting.

Australia now officially out as being against the World League. I think that's it dead now.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... -exclusion

Fun article pointing out the screamingly obvious about the PIs exclusion from Super Rugby. While I get that a PI team would be unlikely to bring the big bucks directly, surely there would be money to be made from bringing another extremely competitive team in that would capture a lot of attention as a loveable underdog? I can imagine it would raise the overall quality and saleability of Super Rugby more than any other expansion and would likely bring big away crowds when they played anywhere with a PI diaspora.

Puja

Puja wrote:Australia now officially out as being against the World League. I think that's it dead now.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... -exclusion

Fun article pointing out the screamingly obvious about the PIs exclusion from Super Rugby. While I get that a PI team would be unlikely to bring the big bucks directly, surely there would be money to be made from bringing another extremely competitive team in that would capture a lot of attention as a loveable underdog? I can imagine it would raise the overall quality and saleability of Super Rugby more than any other expansion and would likely bring big away crowds when they played anywhere with a PI diaspora.

Puja

Sure. I mean except for Argentina, South Africa, or Japan.

I'd also question exactly how competitive such a team would be, at least on a consistent basis, as they'd be frequently raided by European and Japanese clubs due to any Island team having a small budget. Then there's the problem of where they play, and how to get them to all play nicely with each other.

Lump all of Fiji, Tonga, Samoa together under the same generic descriptor. Yeah, that'll go well...

morepork wrote:Lump all of Fiji, Tonga, Samoa together under the same generic descriptor. Yeah, that'll go well...

Given the lack of interest in having Fijian, Tongan, and Samoan Super Rugby teams, they might have to lump having one team that plays its home games around the three nations.

Mind, as it is, they're not even getting that.

Puja

F**king World Rugby not paying to spread out Europe/condense the rest of the world. Those tectonic plates just won’t be bribed.

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:Lump all of Fiji, Tonga, Samoa together under the same generic descriptor. Yeah, that'll go well...

Given the lack of interest in having Fijian, Tongan, and Samoan Super Rugby teams, they might have to lump having one team that plays its home games around the three nations.

Mind, as it is, they're not even getting that.

Puja

Mate, as much as we all hate to acknowledge it, a professional sport is a business. Apia, Nuku'alofa, and Suva would struggle to support viable facilities for a franchise. That's just how it is.

morepork wrote:

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:Lump all of Fiji, Tonga, Samoa together under the same generic descriptor. Yeah, that'll go well...

Given the lack of interest in having Fijian, Tongan, and Samoan Super Rugby teams, they might have to lump having one team that plays its home games around the three nations.

Mind, as it is, they're not even getting that.

Puja

Mate, as much as we all hate to acknowledge it, a professional sport is a business. Apia, Nuku'alofa, and Suva would struggle to support viable facilities for a franchise. That's just how it is.

All three have stadia that can hold more than 10,000 (which would compare favourably to a lot of Australian crowds) and there is always the option for them to have games in Auckland and Hawaii as has previously been mooted.

I think the benefit of an Islander franchise would be about the value of the competition as a whole though, rather than the direct attendances and tv deals (which would clearly be penny hapenny). It would boost the quality of the competition, give outsiders an underdog to cheer for, and it would improve your prospects of getting your hands on US money if you had games in Hawaii.

Puja

cashead wrote:It's not just the venue capacity. The Tongan and Samoan unions in particular have proven time and time again that they simply can not be trusted when there's a large flow of cash at their fingertips.

Pretty much.

morepork wrote:Lump all of Fiji, Tonga, Samoa together under the same generic descriptor. Yeah, that'll go well...

I vote Pacific Browns, and they can compete annually with Cleveland as to which is the worst Browns, trophy to be named Down on the Brown

It's down with the brown.

Contributions from the Northern Hemisphere ladies and gentlemen.

There's an irony to someone objecting to the lumping together disparate pacific countries by lumping together a whole hemisphere after a poor joke....

morepork wrote:It's down with the brown.

Contributions from the Northern Hemisphere ladies and gentlemen.

TBH, we're keeping faith with the NH's longstanding policy - express outrage that you're not doing anything to help the Pacific Islands, offer half-baked ideas for things you can do, and don't do anything constructive ourselves.

Puja

The other problem is that even if Fiji Tonga and Samoa could fill the stadia it would be at a pittance because there just sin't the money around to make substantial sums from ticket sales. They basically need to be subsidised by the other unions in super rugby and they are pretty muhc all struggling themselves.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The other problem is that even if Fiji Tonga and Samoa could fill the stadia it would be at a pittance because there just sin't the money around to make substantial sums from ticket sales. They basically need to be subsidised by the other unions in super rugby and they are pretty muhc all struggling themselves.

My thought more was that it would increase the overall value of the product to foreign markets to have them there, rather than them directly making money. Bit of a gamble, I know.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The other problem is that even if Fiji Tonga and Samoa could fill the stadia it would be at a pittance because there just sin't the money around to make substantial sums from ticket sales. They basically need to be subsidised by the other unions in super rugby and they are pretty muhc all struggling themselves.

My thought more was that it would increase the overall value of the product to foreign markets to have them there, rather than them directly making money. Bit of a gamble, I know.

Puja

It's only ever going to be the PI players who can't earn a proper wage somewhere else. They won't raise the quality overall. They won't be better than average.

Genuine question - if one of these millionaire benefactors wanted to help one or all of the pacific islands (rugby wise), would creating and funding a well resourced super rugby team that could compete in terms of wages be a good use of money?