Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary
-
@Catogrande Of course. I'm no expert on the situation of course, but I would consider myself much better informed than many others that claims to be so. IT seems many people were surprised there has been corruption at the top of Island rugby. And some of these the most vocal about supporting them. I'm not sure how much you need to have your head in the sand to not know that, if rugby journalism is your entire life.
I suspect you're right, but for me, anybody who writes that a politician maybe corrupt, but then not less capable, is way off kilter with any of my views.
-
-
@MajorRage said in Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary:
@Catogrande Of course. I'm no expert on the situation of course, but I would consider myself much better informed than many others that claims to be so. IT seems many people were surprised there has been corruption at the top of Island rugby. And some of these the most vocal about supporting them. I'm not sure how much you need to have your head in the sand to not know that, if rugby journalism is your entire life.
I suspect you're right, but for me, anybody who writes that a politician maybe corrupt, but then not less capable, is way off kilter with any of my views.
That’s all I really need to take away from this post.
-
@Bones said in Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary:
@Rapido said in Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary:
7s. I care little about the format, guys selected for this are often very young. I don’t mind if this doesn’t tie you to a country.
What are the olympics rules on changing country?
The player must
- be a national of the country he wants to represent at the Olympics (Reg 8.6)
- have observed and be able to demonstrate a stand down period of at least three (3) years since the time the Player last represented his former Union (Reg 8.7.2)
- the time the Player first plays for the second Union or country, play in an Olympic Event (Reg 8.7.2)
- not represent the second Union in any other form of the Game until after he has participated in such Olympic Event (Reg 8.7.2)
Reg 8.7.3: The Player’s new Union or Olympic Sevens Team must not have already qualified for the Olympic Games (in the same gender as the Player) as at the time of the Player’s intended first participation for the new Union or Olympic Sevens Team, as applicable (save in the case of a pre-qualified team of the host nation of the Olympic Games).
Reg 8.12 Once the Player has represented the Union or Olympic Sevens Team of which he is a national, in an Olympic Event, he shall thereafter be tied to that Union (or an underlying Union of the Olympic Sevens Team) for all forms of the Game and in all events but shall only be eligible to participate in an International Match in such other forms of the Game in addition to seven-a-side if:
(a) he participates as a Player in no less than half of the tournaments in a series of World Rugby or Regional Association Olympic qualification tournaments ...; and/or
(b) he participates as a Player in at least half of the matches in a standalone World Rugby or Regional Association Olympic qualification tournament ...
Those are the most important requirements. There are also notification requirements and World Rugby's Regulations Committee takes the final decision.
-
@Stargazer ahh right, so not really a possible issue of players being "bought" for olympic purposes. Ta.
-
Haven't really thought it through, but a couple of things around legibility that to me make sense are: (a) a five-year qualification period, and (b) the ability to change after a three-year stand down, but only back to the country in which you were born. This latter measure would allow, say, Vaea Fifita to represent Tonga, but would not allow Kiwi-born "Samoans" like Sopoaga to have a late-career switch to Samoa. I would probably also scrap the grandparent rule, as it's produced some absolutely ridiculous outcomes.
I'm not sure if this would solve the issue, because I'm not really sure what the issue is that is trying to be solved. To me, these just seem to be "fair" measures that, on the one hand, recognise that people move countries and become naturalised citizens of their new nations while, on the other hand, maintaining close connections to the country in which one was born (with the prospect that they may want to move back their one day to raise and family and continue to make a living).
-
@junior The thing I find potentially concerning about the proposal to allow switching from Tier 1 to Tier 2 is of unintended consequences, which I see as twofold. Firstly if any young guy knows he can always revert to say Samoa with little consequence it could see a flood of younger guys opting for a chance at a Tier 1. Secondly if much older guys, however good come back what does that do for the motivation of the younger guys who don’t then get a look in?
Maybe I’m overthinking this but I just can’t see it not having ramifications.
-
So, the stat about "Money from rugby coming into the Islands is equal to 20 per cent of the Pacific Island GDP" is also crap.
From the rugbpass JB article:
Massy University in 2014 ....... total remittances then accounted for around 20 per cent of GDP but the majority came from normal jobs like nurses working in Australia, for example.
Pretty insulting for hundreds of thousands of soldiers, doctors, bus drivers, teachers, scaffolders etc who remittance money either directly or via their churches to have that money claimed as rugby remittences.
(although things get fuzzy when you have things like the symbiotic relationship of the Whanganui bee-keeper training and employing Heartland level rugby players for the local club and eventually provincial union)
I understand the mis-representing of the 25% of pro rugby players are from the islands stat. PRW is a pan-pacific 'union' advocating for players with PI-ethnicity regardless of nation of origin. It makes their point more powerful and media will (have) lap that stat up unquestionably.
I don't understand mis-representing rugby's size in proportion to the remittances economy though, apart from more dramatic film making.
-
@Bones said in Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary:
@Stargazer ahh right, so not really a possible issue of players being "bought" for olympic purposes. Ta.
Not in Rugby, those are WR rules. Olympics rules are you have to be a citizen, thus Saudi basketball teams full of African Americans
-
The real ‘problem’ for Pacific Island rugby are three-fold:
-
They are small economies, excluded from any profit-making annual tournaments, that could allow the unions to be attractive parts of a pro rugby player's career.
-
That the English and French unions were asleep at the wheel in 1996 and professional club rugby was privatized. Now, we have pro clubs paying players too much, making structural losses, needing to play 30 games a year to not go under, playing domestic rugby through international windows. Actively in the market for good players who don’t play international rugby.
-
In response to the financial pressure of European club rugby (point 2). The NZ and Australian union-controlled professional games has shrunk and engaged in protectionist policies to reserve places for national qualified players. This a funnel that genuine pacific products generally pass through before ending up in Europe, so they may spend 4, 5, … 8 years opting out of international rugby to meet contracting criteria. It is also obviously the path that NZ/Aus born or raised players pass through.
The above isn’t a problem for Pacific Island rugby players individually, though. It is a goldmine.
The solutions Dan Leo and PRW are advocating aren’t solutions that will fix the structural causes above. Fair enough, no way I’d expect Dan Leo to be able to solve the above.
-
‘Homecoming’ rule may mitigate the loss of plyers early in their careers by passing through the NZ/Aus funnels. Whether they represent NZ or Aus or just spend 7 years making decisions that will keep them most employable within those structures. For this reason I am in favour of a limited ‘homecoming rule (7s and ‘A’ level).
-
Profit (Gate) sharing will barely scrape the sides compared to being in a profitable annual tournament. Revenue would be irregular. But better than nothing.
-
One country, one vote: I think Leo is mistaken if he thinks this will favour the Islands. Interests may be better served if power is in hands of countries with neo-colonial guilt. Maybe, impossible to prove. Well, it may favour them in some parts but it wouldn't favour them on the homescoming issue.
-
-
It is also important to acknowledge some of the advantages Pacific rugby players have.
- Kolpak means Pacific Islanders can work in the EU more freely than for e.g. NZers or Asutralians can.
- Even without kolpak. Work visa rules for sporting jobs. UK used to have rule where you are eligible for a vias if you have played 75% of your nations’ internationals in the previous 2 years. For PIs this is surpassed by kolpak rules. But with Brexit it means again a Kiwi with e.g. Samoan ancestry has a path that encourages him committing to Samoa for x years with a payoff in Europe the reward. Not an option an NZ Pakeha or Maori has.
- Access to the NZ (and Australian) pathways.
-
@Catogrande said in Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary:
@junior The thing I find potentially concerning about the proposal to allow switching from Tier 1 to Tier 2 is of unintended consequences, which I see as twofold. Firstly if any young guy knows he can always revert to say Samoa with little consequence it could see a flood of younger guys opting for a chance at a Tier 1. Secondly if much older guys, however good come back what does that do for the motivation of the younger guys who don’t then get a look in?
Maybe I’m overthinking this but I just can’t see it not having ramifications.
That's the reason why someone like Billy Vunipola has said that he would not play for Tonga if the rules would change.
Billy Vunipola asked if he'd consider playing for Tonga in the future... - Ruck
Beaumont proposed an eligibility change allowing Billy Vunipola to play for his Tongan homeland, but the England number isn't keen.
-
@Catogrande said in Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary:
@junior The thing I find potentially concerning about the proposal to allow switching from Tier 1 to Tier 2 is of unintended consequences, which I see as twofold. Firstly if any young guy knows he can always revert to say Samoa with little consequence it could see a flood of younger guys opting for a chance at a Tier 1. Secondly if much older guys, however good come back what does that do for the motivation of the younger guys who don’t then get a look in?
Maybe I’m overthinking this but I just can’t see it not having ramifications.
On this, I'm not sure it would make much difference.
The Samoan team is made up of old men, who have passed through the NZ/Aus 'funnels' who don't declare for Samoa until late 20s when they move to Europe.
Whether they are ex-ABs (if had 'homecoming') or just SR level players (as is case now) they are all starting careers late 20s, booting someone out, presumably 32 year olds.
Tonga, reasonably similar, but not as old as Samoa last decade. NZ/Aus funnels have similar effect.
Fiji. In different ball park. Way, way less impacted by NZ/Aus funnels. Genuine domestic producers of plenty of talent.
Hard to tell. Genuine conveyor belt in the outside backs where it is doubtful that the 29 year old ex-AB or French wing would be better than the current 23 year old Fijian wing.
But in positions in the forwards they are using good, but ancient pros in the French leagues. So a Naisarini or Nathan Hughes would be very valuable. But don't want to give even further encouragement to the Naisarinis and Hugheses to attempt T1 first and fall back on Fiji later.
Clear as mud.
Definitely benefit Samoa, less benefit to Fiji, maybe even detrimental.
-
@Catogrande said in Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary:
@junior The thing I find potentially concerning about the proposal to allow switching from Tier 1 to Tier 2 is of unintended consequences, which I see as twofold. Firstly if any young guy knows he can always revert to say Samoa with little consequence it could see a flood of younger guys opting for a chance at a Tier 1. Secondly if much older guys, however good come back what does that do for the motivation of the younger guys who don’t then get a look in?
Maybe I’m overthinking this but I just can’t see it not having ramifications.
I would not restrict the switch back rule to Tier 1 / 2 - it would apply to all countries. In practice though it’s likely to benefit the Tier 2 countries more. I understand your concern about younger guys, but I think the issue with the PI teams and why many are advocating for the switch back rule is because they lack decent players with enough experience (I’m not sure if this is in fact the case but it appears to be the argument).
Also, with what I’m advocating, there’s effectively an 8 year stand down period where a guy is not playing internationally. That to me is enough of a disincentive for silly switch around a and should give at least some guys pause to make an early commitment to their home nation. When you factor in also the time spent playing for their adopted nation, in most cases you’re looking at an overall period of 10+ years which means that any older guy coming back to say Samoa and taking the spot of young up and comer will have to be pretty bloody good because by that stage he’ll be pretty bloody old.
