Exodus 2018
-
But only against lower tier teams from their region (e.g., Americas Rugby Championship). Who does SA A play each year? Namibia, Zimbabwe?
I'm talking about an official tournament like in the 6N when all national teams (A, womens, age group) play eachother over a weekend. The JABs last played in 2009 and I doubt the Pacific Nations Cup will be resurrected soon. Aust A/Barbarians haven't been used since 2011.
The likes of Samoa, Fiji and Tonga would prefer to play the ABs, not the JABs or Maori. Therein lies the problem.
-
@snowy said in Exodus 2018:
@bovidae said in Exodus 2018:
What competition?
Churchill cup, Pacific Nations cup spring to mind where we sent a racially selected team.
I just think that we should have our "second" team as JAB and the Maori AB as a BaaBaas type team. I certainly don't want to get rid of them. I understand that it comes down to money but JAB and MAB should be sustainable, they will both draw a crowd and TV income.
@Nepia As I said it wouldn't affect many, but a young non Maori player who is capped JAB might think twice about heading overseas if the 5 years came into play and he had a chance at the AB. We are starting to lose younger guys it seems.
They are. When they play they are never NZs 2nd team.
Re: your last point I just don't think it happens, would happen enough, to justify the expense of running a JAB team.
-
-
@snowy said in Exodus 2018:
@nepia I reckon there should be room / funding for both teams. A step up from super rugby and a different draw card market. Agreed that MAB aren't the second team, we just don't have one as the MAB fill that space.
Tew, I think, talked about this a few years ago. The Maori team is a better proposition financially because they can attract their own sponsorship, are cheaper to send away, and have a brand that is easier to sell than the JABs. Basically the crux of it is that the JABs cost money whereas the Maori probably come out evens.
-
-
@milk said in Exodus 2018:
Being capped by NZ arguably makes them more attractive to overseas clubs because they won't have any international commitments once they move.
True, assuming that they have no ambitions of playing internationally again.
The sad thing is that international rugby should be the pinnacle that the players are aiming for, and really, financially it should be able to compete but with billionaire dickheads running clubs it doesn't seem to be the case.
-
@nepia yea, i think that's the reason i remember as well. I don't like it much, but it's just another economic reality we have to face.
Didn't the JABs run rough-shod through the last Pacific Nations cup they played as well?
-
@mariner4life said in Exodus 2018:
Didn't the JABs run rough-shod through the last Pacific Nations cup they played as well?
Yeah. I think both JAB and MAB were unbeaten for about 5 years.
-
@snowy said in Exodus 2018:
The sad thing is that international rugby should be the pinnacle that the players are aiming for, and really, financially it should be able to compete but with billionaire dickheads running clubs it doesn't seem to be the case.
The NZ rugby system is setup so that only the marquee and regular ABs earn the big money. If it was like European football, or RL, where the majority of your salary comes from a club contract then the temptation to leave wouldn't be so great. Money from the AB camps (if selected) would just be a nice little bonus, in addition to playing for your national team.
For a player on the fringes of AB selection a guaranteed larger contract in Europe or Japan is a much better proposition.
-
Agree with much of above in response to my original question. I think cappingyoung NZ players would be a good form of restraint to check outflow of players. Wales are planning to get an A team going again. Tests could be arranged during November - the NZ Maori do it, why not JABs? Against Wolfhounds, Saxons and Wales - double header or on the Fri night? Put the matches in the RDS/Thomond, Cardiff Arms or The Stoop. Split the revenue if it made sense.
-
@pot-hale something would have to forthcoming from the host unions, as i doubt we can afford to send 70-odd players north for a month. (wouldn't that constitute about 40% of our fully-pro player base?).
-
@pot-hale said in Exodus 2018:
Agree with much of above in response to my original question. I think cappingyoung NZ players would be a good form of restraint to check outflow of players. Wales are planning to get an A team going again. Tests could be arranged during November - the NZ Maori do it, why not JABs? Against Wolfhounds, Saxons and Wales - double header or on the Fri night? Put the matches in the RDS/Thomond, Cardiff Arms or The Stoop. Split the revenue if it made sense.
Have you been reading any of the responses on this page?
The JABs would have little effect on the outflow of players. See my post below re: the financial reasons for MAB over JAB.
-
@mariner4life said in Exodus 2018:
@pot-hale something would have to forthcoming from the host unions, as i doubt we can afford to send 70-odd players north for a month. (wouldn't that constitute about 40% of our fully-pro player base?).
Agreed. But the NZ Maori have travelled previously so it’s possible. Hell, NZ could select players based in Europe if they wanted.
If the NZRU got in touch with Munster Rugby and said we’d like to arrange a JAB match and use Thomond if we can agree a commercial deal, Munster would bite their hand off.
-
@pot-hale said in Exodus 2018:
@mariner4life said in Exodus 2018:
@pot-hale something would have to forthcoming from the host unions, as i doubt we can afford to send 70-odd players north for a month. (wouldn't that constitute about 40% of our fully-pro player base?).
Agreed. But the NZ Maori have travelled previously so it’s possible. Hell, NZ could select players based in Europe if they wanted.
That is the exact opposite of our policy.
-
@pot-hale yea, we think that the Maori get themselves separate sponsorship that helps to mitigate their own costs.
Selecting European based players basically undermines any intended benefits of the JABs
My main problem with the Maori is the team they send away these days is pretty shit, and they play as the Maori All Blacks. They are damaging the brand!!
-
@nepia said in Exodus 2018:
@pot-hale said in Exodus 2018:
@mariner4life said in Exodus 2018:
@pot-hale something would have to forthcoming from the host unions, as i doubt we can afford to send 70-odd players north for a month. (wouldn't that constitute about 40% of our fully-pro player base?).
Agreed. But the NZ Maori have travelled previously so it’s possible. Hell, NZ could select players based in Europe if they wanted.
That is the exact opposite of our policy.
And? Your policy relates to the senior team, not the junior team. If you want to capture more young Kiwi players and mix them with a couple of old heads, what’s the problem?
-
@mariner4life said in Exodus 2018:
My main problem with the Maori is the team they send away these days is pretty shit, and they play as the Maori All Blacks. They are damaging the brand!!
Extremely shit. Poor coaching, weird backline selections, and extremely weak tight-fives.
-
@pot-hale said in Exodus 2018:
@nepia said in Exodus 2018:
@pot-hale said in Exodus 2018:
@mariner4life said in Exodus 2018:
@pot-hale something would have to forthcoming from the host unions, as i doubt we can afford to send 70-odd players north for a month. (wouldn't that constitute about 40% of our fully-pro player base?).
Agreed. But the NZ Maori have travelled previously so it’s possible. Hell, NZ could select players based in Europe if they wanted.
That is the exact opposite of our policy.
And? Your policy relates to the senior team, not the junior team. If you want to capture more young Kiwi players and mix them with a couple of old heads, what’s the problem?
Because our policy states to be eligible for NZR teams you must play rugby in NZ. We're not going to change that just so a JAB team can tour.
-
@pot-hale said in Exodus 2018:
@nepia said in Exodus 2018:
@pot-hale said in Exodus 2018:
@mariner4life said in Exodus 2018:
@pot-hale something would have to forthcoming from the host unions, as i doubt we can afford to send 70-odd players north for a month. (wouldn't that constitute about 40% of our fully-pro player base?).
Agreed. But the NZ Maori have travelled previously so it’s possible. Hell, NZ could select players based in Europe if they wanted.
That is the exact opposite of our policy.
And? Your policy relates to the senior team, not the junior team. If you want to capture more young Kiwi players and mix them with a couple of old heads, what’s the problem?
because our official line is "leave, and you are dead to us"
and I'm happy with that
