RugbyRebels

Last paragraph looks interesting . . .

The Samoa Rugby Union (S.R.U) will ask England for £160,000 ($T534,000) cut of next month's £10million (T$32million) Test against England.

The Daily Mail reported that Chief Executive Officer, Faleomavaega Vincent Fepulea’i, is personally contacting his counterpart, Steve Brown, for the amount.

It follows a story on The Mail on Sunday which revealed Samoa will earn £650 (T$2,100) each for the week - in contrast to a £22,000 (T$72,100) match fee for England stars.

Samoa's pay packet breaks down to just £95 (T$316) per day for their biggest game of the year, prompting World Rugby vice-chairman Gus Pichot to call for widespread financial reform.

"The whole economic equation in rugby is wrong at the moment," Pichot told The MoS. "I can't bull**** you and say it's all fine, because it is a massive issue. We need a long-term plan."

World Rugby are under pressure to introduce a revenue-share model. There is currently no onus on the hosts to split the revenue with their opponents, which is stunting the growth of cash-strapped tier two nations who lack the infrastructure to stage major Test matches.

"The revenue share model has been discussed," said Pichot. "But the tier one countries decided that wouldn't sustain their economies. England can say they built their stadium to generate profit. Scotland can argue they would be broke if they had to revenue share.

"New Zealand can say they need a turnover of 150 million to break even. You could take the view that is selfish, but it's their right to make those points.

"I'm not a great supporter of making the rich richer but I was in those meetings and it's tough. Someone has £200m and they want £220m. I'm looking for a fair growth of the game."

Pichot believes the Argentina model should provide the blueprint for tier two nations. They set up their own franchise, the Jaguares, and only select home-based players.

"The Argentinian system is the way forward," said Pichot. "Our guys are living in Argentina and making good money relative to our economy. Yes, they can make more money in Europe but at least they have the option to stay at home. There is no revenue share there.

"There are talks of Fiji joining Super Rugby and new competitions in new territories in the Islands. The Fiji CEO invited us to tour there. We are pushing the big nations to travel to the Pacific Islands. We have never pushed so hard. Every meeting it's on the agenda."

Didn't Fiji get £250k last time they came?
That sort of request seems fine, and will almost certainly be granted. It's the kiwis demanding £5M that strarts annoying people

Which Tyler wrote:Didn't Fiji get £250k last time they came?
That sort of request seems fine, and will almost certainly be granted. It's the kiwis demanding £5M that strarts annoying people

They asked for £250k; I believe we gave them something like £80k.

While it is important to properly fund the PIs, I will take a moment to note that those figures are not correct. It might be a £10m test in terms of turnover (although that seems high), but it's not a £10m test in terms of profit. IIRC from the RFU's accounts, they make £1-2m per autumn international (probably on the £1m side for Samoa), which is basically the major part of the union's income for the year.

So yeah, as Which said - structured revenue sharing with poorer countries like Fiji and Samoa, I can totally get behind. NZ and Australia are big enough and ugly enough to find their own damned revenue streams.

Puja

You lost Puja?

morepork wrote:You lost Puja?

I go where I like!

I do hang around here a little; I just don't have as much to say, being even more woefully uninformed than my usual EMB wamblings.

Puja

I don't love the idea of simply handing money over to countries like Samoa and Fiji as it seems the wrong way to go about treating unions on a more equal basis. And too there have been some alleged problems with some unions and money that gets paid in never finding it's way to players, coaches, grass roots, so if money is going to be handed over I wouldn't leap at the chance to pay money into a general pot for some dodgy administrators to get their mits on.

That seems a little condescending, to be honest. First of all, England is not doing Samoa some massive favor out of the kindness of its heart here. The match is mutually beneficial, the Pacific Islands are great entertainers as well as worthy opponents (when permitted to be at their best), and the rugby community is striving to become more inclusive and global. What happens to the Pacific Islands' share of the proceeds is basically none of England's business. Those concerns are for World Rugby to deal with; not other national unions.

rowan wrote:That seems a little condescending, to be honest. First of all, England is not doing Samoa some massive favor out of the kindness of its heart here. The match is mutually beneficial, the Pacific Islands are great entertainers as well as worthy opponents (when permitted to be at their best), and the rugby community is striving to become more inclusive and global. What happens to the Pacific Islands' share of the proceeds is basically none of England's business. Those concerns are for World Rugby to deal with; not other national unions.

While no-one would ever accuse the RFU of doing anything out of the kindness of their heart, the match will be the only one not to be sold out and at lower ticket prices. There are many, many other benefits to supporting Samoa with a fixture, but finances are not one of them, when England could literally make double by hosting one of the 3N, home nations or France.

Puja

rowan wrote:That seems a little condescending, to be honest. First of all, England is not doing Samoa some massive favor out of the kindness of its heart here. The match is mutually beneficial, the Pacific Islands are great entertainers as well as worthy opponents (when permitted to be at their best), and the rugby community is striving to become more inclusive and global. What happens to the Pacific Islands' share of the proceeds is basically none of England's business. Those concerns are for World Rugby to deal with; not other national unions.

You really need to get over your bias against the English. Player welfare and income have been compromised by corruption in their management for some time. This is well documented.

No, it's you who needs to get over your anti-Pacific Islander bias. In fact, I've made no criticism of England at all, simply pointed out that the concerns raised here are for World Rugby to deal with; not other individual national unions. It's really quite amazing how criticisms of the Pacific Islands, South African government and others buzz around here like blueflies around a sheep's arse, but mention anything that might not be regarded as favorable toward the English and their ilk and suddenly you get some paranoid moron screaming bias.

You are full of shit, sorry. I fail to see how any comments of mine can be construed as bias against Pacific Islanders. You miss the point every fucking time, and your stock standard response to any perceived slight to yourself is this sort of condescending pre-determined narrative. My comment was for Samoa specifically. There are plenty of articles out there to cut and paste. You labeling me as anti-Pacific Islander is just ridiculous and offensive. You act the smug know it all every time a poster from the English board comes on here to make a comment, who invariably polite and well-informed.

Your friend of the working man act is just getting old. Take that however you like.

Peace.

Now there's a classic example of someone who cannot take his own medicine. You've got far too big a chip on your shoulder to ever be able to view the world from a balanced perspective. I recognized that pretty much from the outset.

Anyway, this is the part of the article that interested me most personally:

"There are talks of Fiji joining Super Rugby and new competitions in new territories in the Islands. The Fiji CEO invited us to tour there. We are pushing the big nations to travel to the Pacific Islands. We have never pushed so hard. Every meeting it's on the agenda."

I haven't been able to locate any evidence of this...

Classic stock standard response. How am I unbalanced exactly? Are you persisting with an assumption of my "anti-Pacific Island bias"? Again, your style of discussion is extremely (deliberately?) confusing. What medicine? Is it irony medicine?

Puja wrote:

rowan wrote:That seems a little condescending, to be honest. First of all, England is not doing Samoa some massive favor out of the kindness of its heart here. The match is mutually beneficial, the Pacific Islands are great entertainers as well as worthy opponents (when permitted to be at their best), and the rugby community is striving to become more inclusive and global. What happens to the Pacific Islands' share of the proceeds is basically none of England's business. Those concerns are for World Rugby to deal with; not other national unions.

While no-one would ever accuse the RFU of doing anything out of the kindness of their heart, the match will be the only one not to be sold out and at lower ticket prices. There are many, many other benefits to supporting Samoa with a fixture, but finances are not one of them, when England could literally make double by hosting one of the 3N, home nations or France.

Puja

I certainly think we should be touring Samoa (and other PI nations), rather than merely touring SA, Oz, NZ and Argentina in a Lions summer over and over. Touring Samoa though seems the much better quid pro quo than on some sporadic basis handing over part of a home gate receipt when part of our thinking is specifically not to seek gate sharing mechanisms.

Shall I do a poll to settle this once and for all?

Who is wrong about absolutely everything all the time?

A) Rowan

B) Morepork

Vote now.

rowan wrote:Now there's a classic example of someone who cannot take his own medicine. You've got far too big a chip on your shoulder to ever be able to view the world from a balanced perspective. I recognized that pretty much from the outset.

Anyway, this is the part of the article that interested me most personally:

"There are talks of Fiji joining Super Rugby and new competitions in new territories in the Islands. The Fiji CEO invited us to tour there. We are pushing the big nations to travel to the Pacific Islands. We have never pushed so hard. Every meeting it's on the agenda."

I haven't been able to locate any evidence of this...

Oh fuck off, you smarmy tone-policing cunt.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

rowan wrote:That seems a little condescending, to be honest. First of all, England is not doing Samoa some massive favor out of the kindness of its heart here. The match is mutually beneficial, the Pacific Islands are great entertainers as well as worthy opponents (when permitted to be at their best), and the rugby community is striving to become more inclusive and global. What happens to the Pacific Islands' share of the proceeds is basically none of England's business. Those concerns are for World Rugby to deal with; not other national unions.

While no-one would ever accuse the RFU of doing anything out of the kindness of their heart, the match will be the only one not to be sold out and at lower ticket prices. There are many, many other benefits to supporting Samoa with a fixture, but finances are not one of them, when England could literally make double by hosting one of the 3N, home nations or France.

Puja

I certainly think we should be touring Samoa (and other PI nations), rather than merely touring SA, Oz, NZ and Argentina in a Lions summer over and over. Touring Samoa though seems the much better quid pro quo than on some sporadic basis handing over part of a home gate receipt when part of our thinking is specifically not to seek gate sharing mechanisms.

I think Samoa & Tonga should be prepared to play "home" tests in Auckland and Brisbane, tbh. They just don't have the population or the stadia to make a visit to their own islands profitable. & if they are prepared to do that, no reason why they couldn't be included on the itineraries of 6 Nations teams making a proper tour there. Fiji, on the other hand, does have a big enough stadium to host its own tests, and Suva has been a graveyard for some pretty decent teams, including the British & Irish Lions (and very nearly the All Blacks), so I'm surprised they're not already hosting more international teams.

The Samoa Rugby Union (S.R.U.) had a tough year in 2016 as it attempted to deal with a debt of over $1million from the previous financial year. http://sobserver.ws/en/18_10_2017/local ... m-debt.htm

Are the Pacific Islanders included on any of the 2018 summer tours Down Under at this point? I'm sure Fiji must be in there somewhere; just don't see anything.

rowan wrote:The Samoa Rugby Union (S.R.U.) had a tough year in 2016 as it attempted to deal with a debt of over $1million from the previous financial year. http://sobserver.ws/en/18_10_2017/local ... m-debt.htm

Yeesh. Any news on if the NZRU are going to fork over any of their revenues from the Lions to help them with that?

Puja

One thing that needs to be taken into account about the Pacific Islands is the threat from league. On another thread I've dismissed the threat in North America due to the vast differences in player numbers (over a hundred thousand players in union compared to a few thousand in league, which is such a tiny drop in the ocean it would barely even scale down to one team in NZ). But in the Pacific Islands the threat is much greater, of course, and very real. In fact, the rival code seems to be upping the ante these days with increased international competition involving the Pacific Islands - including within the islands themselves. They are no doubt doing so at considerable expense to the international governing body, but in their case they need to, because so very few nations are actually able to put together competitive sides. Now we all know the Pacific Islanders are the great entertainers in both codes, and that many of the finest players of the professional era have come from that region, with directly or as part of a foreign-based diaspora. There is probably no cause more worthy of funding in our game than maintaining union's status as the pre-eminent code in the islands, and I think World Rugby has acknowledged that and done its part. So long as it continues to do so.

If the Pacific Islands see a shift toward league then fair enough, by all means we should as a game look to invest in the Islands, but not to try and stop any rise of league. If people want/prefer league and/or it's a better fit for sporting infrastructure then they're free to make that choice. I'm not going to watch league as it doesn't do much for me, but it seems very odd to try and dictate to others which way their interests should be directed.

So you have misconstrued comments suggesting rugby union officials should continue to support the code in the islands in the face of increasing competition from league as "dictating to others which way their interests should be directed," which is about as strange as your view that England shouldn't just hand money to the islands, because Pacific Islanders might not handle those funds responsibly.

Digby, you're really a very confused individual.

And you are a tedious fuckwit. Digby is right, why go in looking to throttle momentum of a competing code? Try that in the Cook Islands and see how far it goes.

Cue the follow up moronic comment from Moronpork. You guy's have become entirely predictable with your juvenile comments to derail every discussion I'm involved with. First Digby makes an idiot and irrelevant accusation that is based on nothing but his own bias' and delusions, then you following up with your infantile drivel because you share the same prejudices. Clever stuff, guys.