Pasifika SR team
-
@stargazer said in Pasifika SR team:
They're currently discussing MP on the Breakdown. Hopefully, it will be posted on YouTube, so we can post it here.
If it's got Laban on it, I won't be watching. Hopefully someone will post want facts (not supposition) that came out. I doubt there will be any
-
-
It really rubs me the wrong way when they refer to player by their ethnicity rather than their nationality. It's parallel thinking with White nationalists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dan Leo, Ken Laban, Charles Piutau, Lima Sopoaga Steven Luatua are all born in NZ. They are kiwis as much as anyone else, in the same way that English footballers of Jamaican or Nigerian ancestry are still English (unless you are a White nationalist).
-
The whole thing sounds like woke nonsense. Are they going to prevent "pakeha" players from joining the squad?
-
@antipodean Why would they? 20% can be non-eligible for Tonga, Samoa or Fiji. That 20% could include anyone.
If they explicitly exclude pakeha, then that would violate the Human Rights Act. But again, why would they? If they could get Beauden Barrett after his NZR contract expires as one of the 20%, I think they'd do it. The likes of Eliota what's-his-name wouldn't be happy, but the crowds would love it.
-
@stargazer said in Pasifika SR team:
@antipodean Why would they?
The clue is in the name and the link with Tonga and Samoa. This isn't my project so I'm asking questions why NZR is cannibalising itself to further support a team with the name Moana Pasifika.
-
@mofitzy_ The concept of Nationhood in the Pacific is entirely different from that in the Western world. It's not determined by your nationality or citizenship, but by your cultural heritage. It's a big cultural difference and important to Pacific peoples. Trying to impose cultural concepts on other people is just plain wrong.
They'll need to find a practical solution that is acceptable to all; that requires a fair compromise.
-
@stargazer
That's all well and good but we all have to operate on the same rules to work together, just like sport itself. If you want to be born and raised in one country but identify with another, that's fine, but there are things called passports and eligibility rules. If Piutau was earning the same money to play for the ABs, he'd be a proud NZer. -
I'm no fan of this concept, as I've posted already.
Yes, I agree with Laban it won't exist in 10 years time. It is doomed to fail. As it's pathway (and attractiveness) ends abruptly short of 10 other teams in the league
If going ahead, I agree with Laban (and Senio's) point (and disagree with Kirwan) that it shouldn't be 100% PI qualified. Just like NZ teams aren't 100% NZ qualified. That would just institutionalize them as the cellar dwellers every year.
But anyway, will it result in more PI-qualified (or tied) players playing with th Kirwan idea? No, it will just shift the 10% of PI players with the other 5 franchises to the new MP team. No net gain.
As I've said before. Access to professional club rugby is not and never has been a problem for PI players. The problem is test rugby. PI-qualified players do not play test rugby for the PIs because there is no money in PI test rugby. This does not address that problem. This is not some Jaguars/Argentina combined approach. This is just adding Brown Counties Manukau to a comp. Replicating the political racial interference and institutionalized crapness of the Kings in old Super Rugby but at a smaller and cheaper geographic scale.
Adding North Auckland, would have added 8 extra PI-tied potential places in local professional rugby. It would have made the Tran- Ta$man comp more interesting as it weakened NZ depth. Assuming Drua exist and go ahead. 8 potential Samoan/Tongans per team among the 6 NZ teams and 5 Aussie teams = 88 professional polynesian players locally to try and pick two test squads from (plus Euro and japan based players if worth their while). Then include the 3 PI nations in TRC. That would at least be an honest attempt to 'solve' the 'problem'. Moana Pasifika is just a big lie, solves nothing.
-
I think JK makes an important point when he says that NZ franchises, particularly the Blues and Chiefs, will try to sign schoolboys on 10 year contracts (probably a bit of an exaggeration, but definitely long-term contracts) to prevent them from being picked up by MP.
Franchises will become defensive and sign talent that's too young to take such big decisions and may turn out to be the wrong signings because players don't always become the great players as expected when they're still at school age.
-
And even if your only motivation is looking after your family economically, the model is: play for the ABs then move to England or France. AB success is how you make a name for yourself in Europe. Please tell me how a NZ team made with mostly NZ players strengthens PI rugby. I really struggle to see the connection. It just weakens the other 5 teams.
-
@stargazer said in Pasifika SR team:
I think JK makes an important point when he says that NZ franchises, particularly the Blues and Chiefs, will try to sign schoolboys on 10 year contracts (probably a bit of an exaggeration, but definitely long-term contracts) to prevent them from being picked up by MP.
Franchises will become defensive and sign talent that's too young to take such big decisions and may turn out to be the wrong signings because players don't always become the great players as expected when they're still at school age.
So just like now then? Proctor springs to mind. Long contracts for young players isn't new. It also isn't wise.
-
@snowy He obviously meant that those contracts will be more widely used. Now, they're still an exception. I've never heard of players being signed for more than 5 years either.
I don't know whether NZR has rules around this, but they may also start targeting younger players, for example, of about 15-16 years old. Or throw way too much money at young players.
-
@mofitzy_ said in Pasifika SR team:
And even if your only motivation is looking after your family economically, the model is: play for the ABs then move to England or France. AB success is how you make a name for yourself in Europe. Please tell me how a NZ team made with mostly NZ players strengthens PI rugby. I really struggle to see the connection. It just weakens the other 5 teams.
The people backing MP don't see them as NZ players, but as Pasifika players that are eligible for Tonga/Samoa/Fiji. The thinking seems to be that players who can earn enough in Super Rugby (MP), will be less inclined to go to Europe, which - indeed - may be a bit naieve. If they stay in SR, it will be easier to represent their Island Nation because they won't have the problem they now face with player release by European clubs.
Payment by the Island nations for playing test rugby will be a challenge, but that's why - I think - the Island Unions will get a share in the revenue (broadcasting rights etc). They'll definitely need to sort out the corruption part, so players don't have to wait two years to get paid for playing tests, again.
-
@stargazer said in Pasifika SR team:
He obviously meant that those contracts will be more widely used.
Seriously why? Any of the teams can do that now with a player of any cultural heritage.
