RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:Why should they support the islands? Wouldn't they be better off supporting Romanian, Russian and Georgian rugby as they do by allowing their clubs to play in European competition? Surely it would make sense to do it on a geographical basis?

Puja

Why not do both? & your first question has been answered.

Puja wrote:Perhaps NZ, SA and Aus could give up one of their three Lions fixture to a PI? Or maybe New Zealand could give up one of their Super Rugby teams to allow a Samoan one to enter. Something sustainable and long-term.

Puja

Probably because this is fucking stupid, and neither the SARU, ARU nor the NZRU are under any obligation to jeopardise their own financial security, or that of their Super Rugby sides for the benefit of a group of outfits that can barely run themselves.

Nobody said they were under any obligation.

I agree that none of the Southern Hemisphere Super Rugby franchises should have to make way for a possible Islanders team.

Given the size of their economies, the islands are doing well just to remain as active and competitive in the international arena as they are. Tonga has the same population as Jersey and a fraction of its GDP, for instance.

rowan wrote:

Puja wrote:Why should they support the islands? Wouldn't they be better off supporting Romanian, Russian and Georgian rugby as they do by allowing their clubs to play in European competition? Surely it would make sense to do it on a geographical basis?

Puja

Why not do both? & your first question has been answered.

Because the letters on the front of the building read RFU, not ATM. The route to helping smaller nations is either through competition or increasing World Rugby subsidies, not through sending the begging bowl to unions who need that money elsewhere.

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:Perhaps NZ, SA and Aus could give up one of their three Lions fixture to a PI? Or maybe New Zealand could give up one of their Super Rugby teams to allow a Samoan one to enter. Something sustainable and long-term.

Puja

Probably because this is fucking stupid, and neither the SARU, ARU nor the NZRU are under any obligation to jeopardise their own financial security, or that of their Super Rugby sides for the benefit of a group of outfits that can barely run themselves.

It wasn't really a serious suggestion. Since Rowan seemed comfortable with England giving up some of the income that keeps them financially stable, I thought I'd float the idea of New Zealand doing it. As it turns out, it's only England who are supposed to be giving up some of their income.

Puja

I think you, also, are deliberately misinterpreting a simple suggestion (which was not my own, btw, but only one I support) as being a demand. It is not that. It is like saying to somebody, hey, why don't you help out your little brother? & they turn around and snarl back at you "do you think I'm a charity organization or something?!" Well, in Britain that might well happen, I suppose.

Puja wrote:I think Digby's point was that it shouldn't be down to erratic charitable donations or occasional pledge drives. There should be a more structured method to improve their regular income. Perhaps NZ, SA and Aus could give up one of their three Lions fixture to a PI? Or maybe New Zealand could give up one of their Super Rugby teams to allow a Samoan one to enter. Something sustainable and long-term.

Puja

Exactly that. And I'm fine even if that system costs us money, frankly in some fashion more money needs to flow from the richer to the poorer nations imo, but it should be structured across the board.

rowan wrote:I think you, also, are deliberately misinterpreting a simple suggestion (which was not my own, btw, but only one I support) as being a demand. It is not that. It is like saying to somebody, hey, why don't you help out your little brother? & they turn around and snarl back at you "do you think I'm a charity organization or something?!" Well, in Britain that might well happen, I suppose.

It strikes me a little bit more like someone turning to you after you get paid and saying, "Hey, why don't you help out my little brother" and then acting like you're being unreasonable when you point out that you're already helping your own brother, you've got bills that need paying, and hey don't they earn money that they could lay out instead of coming to you?

If World Rugby wants to set up a tax for everyone for a little income redistribution (to really stretch the analogy) then that'd be great, but that's not what you're proposing.

Puja

Ok, we'll agree to disagree, or disagree to agree then, or something like that.

Again, it's not my proposal, just one I support, being a regular philanthropist (with other people's money of course)

Puja wrote:
If World Rugby wants to set up a tax for everyone for a little income redistribution (to really stretch the analogy) then that'd be great, but that's not what you're proposing.

Puja

The obvious place to start is to stop allowing the tier 1 nations to gouge so much of the RWC monies and hand over much more to tier 2 and below.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
If World Rugby wants to set up a tax for everyone for a little income redistribution (to really stretch the analogy) then that'd be great, but that's not what you're proposing.

Puja

The obvious place to start is to stop allowing the tier 1 nations to gouge so much of the RWC monies and hand over much more to tier 2 and below.

Or every home test match for a tier 1 nation they pay World Rugby 1% of the take?

Puja

Marvellous idea. Stick it in an envelope and send it to World Rugby HQ.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
If World Rugby wants to set up a tax for everyone for a little income redistribution (to really stretch the analogy) then that'd be great, but that's not what you're proposing.

Puja

The obvious place to start is to stop allowing the tier 1 nations to gouge so much of the RWC monies and hand over much more to tier 2 and below.

Or every home test match for a tier 1 nation they pay World Rugby 1% of the take?

Puja

That sees some cough up rather more, and also invites some daft takes on what makes the take. Whereas on the RWC money then yes the tier 1 nations can claim if they don't have the RWC money they'd be under pressure not to appear in a RWC and instead have 3-4 home matches, and if they want to do that I'd let them, I'm willing to bet they'd actually want to play in a RWC

Tuilagi backs his homeland:

England-based Samoan star, Manu Tuilagi, has asked England’s players to help Samoan rugby by splitting match fees for their upcoming test match.

Born in Samoa, Tuilagi has been joined by Tonga-born Mako Vunipola in taking up Samoa’s call for help.

The players have asked the English team to donate five per cent of their earnings to Samoa.

“If 23 England players give £1,000 each, that will make a lot of difference to the Islanders,” Vunipola told the Mail on Sunday.

“We’re very lucky over here with the security we have from our clubs and England. A union as big as England get a lot of revenue so I’d like to see them help out Samoa.

“I have no interest in politics at all — Maro Itoje had to explain to me what Brexit meant — but I’m interested in helping people back home. People think the situation will solve itself but it’s getting worse. If players help out, maybe the higher ups will see and realise they should help out as well.”

England players will earn £22,000 per Test, compared with £650 for their Samoan opponents.

There is currently no World Rugby regulation for host nations to share matchday revenues, although the governing bodies are under increasing pressure to change the economic model.

And Samoa-born Tuilagi believes far more than a £1,000 player donation is needed to get to the root of the problem.

“That small gesture would go a long way and hopefully it would set an example for the RFU to follow,” said Tuilagi who, like Vunipola, is a Pacific Rugby Welfare board member.

“It’s unfair. They need help from the rugby world but they also need to look at themselves and the people running the union.

“They’re close to bankruptcy – a million pounds in debt – and can you imagine a rugby world with no Samoa? A rugby world without Samoa is no rugby world to me. It would be very, very sad. There’s so much potential. With the right infrastructure and management, they can be as good as any team in the world.”


http://sobserver.ws/en/06_11_2017/rugby ... -Samoa.htm

So, after reading all the above posts and taking into account all the differing opinions I’ve come to the conclusion that, and I’m sure we’ll all agree, Manu Tuilagi is as thick mince.

Makes sense to me.

Latest:

The Samoan public are being asked to dig deep to bail out the country's rugby union, which has been labelled "bankrupt" by Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/ ... ugby-union

The RFU have responded to questions about Samoa's finances.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/41915435

"We've had a letter from the Samoan Union," Brown told BBC 5 live a fortnight ago. "What's tricky about that letter is that it expresses a complex dispute that it has with World Rugby, and is linking that with a request for funding.

"One of the things that we do when Samoa is here, is we cover all of their costs whilst they are in the country, so that will happen naturally.

"[But] this appears to be about something else which we wouldn't want to get involved in."

Puja

It's not nice not to help, but they're not going anywhere as a Union anyway. I do hope we push for a fairer calendar, though doubt we'll do little that isn't seen to be directly in our own favour.

BRAVO !!

More than $350,000 has been pledged to the Manu Samoa and the Samoa Rugby Union during a Radiothon, which ended last night.

The fundraiser held at the S.T.A Fale and screened live on TV1 followed the public declaration by the Chairman of the Samoa Rugby Union and Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi that the Union is “insolvent.”

The proceeds are to help pay for the insurance of Manu Samoa players who are in Europe for their Northern Hemisphere tour, which starts against Scotland on Sunday moening.

It will also be used to pay the salary of coach, Fuimaono Titimaea Tafua, whose appointment is being disputed by World Rugby.

When the Radiothon ended on TV last night, it was announced that the money pledged was some $354,000. This includes a donation of more than $150,000 from a Chinese company

http://www.sobserver.ws/en/09_11_2017/l ... -Union.htm

Puja wrote:The RFU have responded to questions about Samoa's finances.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/41915435

"We've had a letter from the Samoan Union," Brown told BBC 5 live a fortnight ago. "What's tricky about that letter is that it expresses a complex dispute that it has with World Rugby, and is linking that with a request for funding.

"One of the things that we do when Samoa is here, is we cover all of their costs whilst they are in the country, so that will happen naturally.

"[But] this appears to be about something else which we wouldn't want to get involved in."

Puja

Have I read this correctly..?. There is no sharing of the gate because all revenue is down to RFU marketing.

I believe the RFU has pledged to help them out, not with increased share of the gate but some kind of donation, similar to the 75 grand sterling they spotted Fiji last year. Meanwhile the Samoan Rugby Union has being doing very well, raffling off a pig or two, holding bottle drives and garage sales, and setting up a car wash at a local service station in Apia.

Seems to me that any London based NGO's are tainted by the filth of the square mile. This is the actual trickle-down effect.
The corruption at the FA didn't just suddenly arrive from nowhere. City boys saw an opportunity and they have exported it around the world.

kk67 wrote:

Puja wrote:The RFU have responded to questions about Samoa's finances.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/41915435

"We've had a letter from the Samoan Union," Brown told BBC 5 live a fortnight ago. "What's tricky about that letter is that it expresses a complex dispute that it has with World Rugby, and is linking that with a request for funding.

"One of the things that we do when Samoa is here, is we cover all of their costs whilst they are in the country, so that will happen naturally.

"[But] this appears to be about something else which we wouldn't want to get involved in."

Puja

Have I read this correctly..?. There is no sharing of the gate because all revenue is down to RFU marketing.

Eh? Where've you got that from?

Puja

I'm talking out of my arse here having never been to Samoa and living half way around the world for some time now, but is the financial situation of the national rugby team indicative of financial reality on the ground for the average Samoan? Anyone been lately or have contacts there that can speak to the day to day?

J Dory wrote:I'm talking out of my arse here having never been to Samoa and living half way around the world for some time now, but is the financial situation of the national rugby team indicative of financial reality on the ground for the average Samoan? Anyone been lately or have contacts there that can speak to the day to day?

Yes, Einstein, that is the reality in Samoa. It's a very small country with a tiny GDP. Assembling a squad of about 40 players and officials and flying them around the world, putting them up in hotel rooms in cities like Paris and London, securing access to world class training facilities, feeding them several times daily and kitting them all out with suits and playing gear, does tend to stretch their budget a little. The main reason there are almost as many Samoans living in NZ now as there are in Samoa is purely financial. Most would prefer to be back there otherwise, but there is simply no money and no opportunity to make any.