NZ article attacking Celtic nations

profitius

I just spotted this strange article.

Rugby: Samoan backlash feared

There has been a cruel and spiteful inverse dynamic when it comes to Samoa in that the more they achieve, the more some in the established rugby world want to chop them down.

Last week's thrilling win against Australia has had the direct effect of lifting Samoa's confidence ahead of the World Cup while also giving the rugby romantics a sense of hope this tiny island nation can once again steal the show.

But, unfortunately, it will also have had indirect impact - and will have set off a chain of events, the consequences of which won't be felt for some time.

The established rugby order, particularly the Celts, have only ever seen Samoa as a threat. Wales have never processed the humiliation they felt after losing to Samoa in 1991 and their ability to embrace Pasifika was hardly improved by losing to Samoa again in 1999 and then to Fiji in 2007.

The Celts have a seat at the top table and don't want to give it up. They are acutely aware that Samoa, tiny little Samoa, has playing resources they can only dream of.

Scotland, Ireland and Wales are also acutely aware that if Samoa could be given organisational stability and an economic footing, they could become an instant contender - not necessarily capable of winning a World Cup but capable of pushing the big five close.

That thought never strays far from northern minds, which is why proposed changes to the eligibility laws have been repeatedly rejected in the last few years. Just as turkeys don't vote for Christmas, the Celts were never going to sign off on a proposal that would have allowed the Pacific Island nations to retrieve All Blacks and Wallabies who were no longer required by New Zealand and Australia.

The justification for rejecting the proposal was to protect the credibility of international rugby. Yet none of the Celts seemingly believe that England picking four New Zealanders, three South Africans, an American-Italian and a Tongan in their extended World Cup squad tarnishes the credibility of the game.

Victory in Sydney will only have hardened attitudes to find ways to make life tough for Samoa at an institutional level. The IRB will soon finalise their long-term capital expenditure plan on growing the game in developing nations.

It would be a major surprise if Samoa receives much investment. They pocketed £2.2 million the last time around and that will most likely be their lot.

The Tier One nations shared £14 million in the same funding cycle and then voted to award themselves another £1 million each in every World Cup year. The IRB revel in their supposed generosity yet they granted the richest nations - who have massive broadcast and sponsorship deals in place and major revenue-generating power - more money than they did Samoa.

Of greater concern is how the Australians react to defeat. While New Zealand is perennially accused of stealing Pacific Island talent by an ignorantly indignant northern media, their ire should be focused across the Tasman.

Samoa's assistant coach Tom Coventry says the relationship with New Zealand administrators is strong and collaborative.

"We have been having discussions with the NZRU about certain players who are dual qualified to get a handle on where they sat in the All Black pecking order," Coventry said. "We were both pretty open with each other about players we were interested in."

It would seem as if a gentleman's agreement was in play. But such cordial exchanges are unlikely to be enjoyed with the Australians. New Zealand has always allowed Pacific Island players into its Super Rugby teams.

The Australians opened their system only in 2008 and have done so in the most sinister way. When they announced the introduction of their "marquee" policy, where each franchise can sign one non-Wallaby eligible player, there was also the provision which allows one other player to fall outside the salary cap. The catch is this is player's eligibility can't already have been captured and the Australians have barely hidden their intention - that this was set up to enable them to lure young Polynesians to Australia and convert them into Wallabies.

Nothing is likely to make the Australians want the Pacific Islands' best talent more than the bitter taste of defeat. What better way to depower Samoa than lure their next generation of players with a bag of money and a gold jersey?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10740468

errlloyd

That was unpleasant to read, its a shame because I try to like NZ but their journalists really let them down.

B0X

I thought it was some form of damage control from the Australian media, "Oh we lost to Samoa, BUT the north fears them more!!" but then I saw it was the NZ press and now i'm very confused.

thomond2006

I remember reading somewhere else about there being a vote on this, might have been Rugby World. I remember the Celtic Nations did vote against.

Edit: In saying that, there's a lot of inconsistencies in that article. Skunkles sums it up well below.

MungBean

the Celts were never going to sign off on a proposal that would have allowed the Pacific Island nations to retrieve All Blacks and Wallabies who were no longer required by New Zealand and Australia.

The justification for rejecting the proposal was to protect the credibility of international rugby. Yet none of the Celts seemingly believe that England picking four New Zealanders, three South Africans, an American-Italian and a Tongan in their extended World Cup squad tarnishes the credibility of the game.

Great they way the writer is using legal but questionable use of foreign players by England (which no doubt the SH teams also take advantage of) to question the credibility of the Celtic nations trying to stop it turning into a farce.

I also think he's confusing the respect shown to Samoa and the other lesser SH teams by NH teams with contempt. More than likely because the "Big three" are so use to lookin down on every team that they understand nothing but contempt themselves.

would have allowed the Pacific Island nations to retrieve All Blacks and Wallabies who were no longer required by New Zealand and Australia.

They are very kind to "Tiny little Samoa" and the others arnt they ? Allowing them to use the players they no longer need. The writer is probably a NZ born Samoan with a monumental chip on his shoulder.

Angered up my blood that did.

rosskind

So it's okay for them to steal the players in the first place, but we're the bad guys for not letting them go back? Cool.

Diom

What a pile of manure! Illogical at it's core.

CIARAN_BOYLE

thomond2006 wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere else about there being a vote on this, might have been Rugby World. I remember the Celtic Nations did vote against.

vote went heavily down. A lot more than the celtic nations were against it.

profitius

And supposing the laws did change. That would benefit NZ and Australia even more. The likes of Nacewa could be called up to play for the AB's.

B0X

Which would be stupid. All respect to Nacewa and all, but if you play for a country no matter how young and stupid you are, that's the country you're gonna play for. No takesy backsy! :P

jolley123

rosskind wrote: »

So it's okay for them to steal the players in the first place, but we're the bad guys for not letting them go back? Cool.

Pretty much sums it up.

As far as I'm concerned, you know what commitment you make when you run out for a country, and that's it. Those players have chosen to run out for Aus and NZ, because that's the team they committed to. You can't just turn around and head back to Samoa if you are no longer needed.

PhatPiggins

I'd wondered where Neil Francis was writing since they canned the Tribune

conf101

rosskind wrote: »

So it's okay for them to steal the players in the first place, but we're the bad guys for not letting them go back? Cool.

Discussion over. This says it all.

Give out when they have something to gain but stay quiet when they're the ones playing unfair!

Amazotheamazing

I actually think the writer has a point. The "home countries" and Australia, particularly Scotland but to a lesser extent Ireland and Wales, do play a one-sided game. Scotland, from what I can see, has little or no interest in spreading the game, they tried to block the expansion of the ML, they don't want professional sides and frankly, seem to hark after the amateur era when they were big fish in the small pool.

Time and again it's been shown that NZ give much, much more to the Islands than they take but there's the recurring myth that they are poachers. There's a host of players with 7's caps that could play for the Islands, guys like Mafi etc, if the rules were changed.

A simple rule would be that no team in the 6n's or 3n's could benefit from players reversing their International status (ie Ireland couldn't cap Mafi but Tonga (I think) could) but teams outside it could. You'd end up with players playing for Islands and possibly French based players qualifying for places like Belgium and Spain. We could revisit the ruling every 5 years to see if it needed to be changed.

The title is wrong, English isn't a Celtic country, but the point of the article is one worth making, imo.

conf101

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

The title is wrong, English isn't a Celtic country, but the point of the article is one worth making, imo.

No it's not. It's a completely one sided way of looking at things and looking at a discussion that is far from black and white!

Amazotheamazing

conf101 wrote: »

No it's not. It's a completely one sided way of looking at things and looking at a discussion that is far from black and white!

I don't know, when England take the pitch with several "non-English" players, you have to ask what's the point of International rugby anymore, imo. England have the most players, the most money and an established pro league, and yet they lead the way among top teams in terms of poaching.

If Int rugby isn't really about where you're from, what is it about?

And if it isn't about where you're from, why stop players from moving to another country? Remember, players used to be able to switch, John Gallagher was born in England, won a RWC with NZ and played with England and for Ireland A. Brian Smith played for Australia and Ireland. Even recently Keith Gleeson played for Australia A and Ireland. Let's not pretend the current rules have some long standing place in rugby.

Would the Islands be better if some sort of leeway was introduced?

By the by, Ireland has a specific poaching policy under the guise of "project players" so let's not pretend we're whiter than white. Recently we capped SA's Brett Wilkinson at A level, Diack is now Irish qualified (afaik) and we hope to poach Strauss in another season. Seemingly 1 out of the 6 NIQ's must come within the remit of a project player.

JustinDee

rosskind wrote: »

So it's okay for them to steal the players in the first place, but we're the bad guys for not letting them go back? Cool.

This has been discussed umpteen flippin' times.
Apart from Sivivatu, name players who are 'stolen' by NZ? Give examples. You won't be able to. Know why? It is a myth.

The article itself is the kind of rubbish that will be more prevalent as the RWC nears. The likes of referees, way the game is played and excuse after excuse will be bashed out by Hansen, ex-players and the NZ media.
Just a sign of even their media feeling the 'prishah'.
The players the journalist is referring to have played international rugby for a country. They have declared for someone and played for them. A once-off. The players he refers to in England, for example, before declaring for England simply have not played intl rugby union for anyone else. The ruling is to prevent a transfer market in rugby as things were ridiculous before 2000 when it was changed.

Ironically the guy who penned that piece given his logic on nationalities isn't even a Kiwi. He's Scottish.

JustinDee

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

And if it isn't about where you're from, why stop players from moving to another country? Remember, players used to be able to switch, John Gallagher was born in England, won a RWC with NZ and played with England and for Ireland A. Brian Smith played for Australia and Ireland. Even recently Keith Gleeson played for Australia A and Ireland. Let's not pretend the current rules have some long standing place in rugby.

Would the Islands be better if some sort of leeway was introduced?

The ruling isn't to prevent the Pac Islands teams getting good. The transferability of an international player from one country to another is farcical. This is now prevented. There is no legal restraint anywhere that can stop a naturalised player declaring for a country. What can be adjusted is the amount of time it takes for a player to become selectable for a country. Things will never revert to the stupid way it was before.
The current ruling does not have a long standing place in rugby history. It was only introduced after the RWC99.

Keith Gleeson never played 'A' level for Australia, by the way. He was born in Ireland and brought up in Aussie so he quite rightly had the choice to declare for either. He chose Ireland even though he was tipped at the time for the breakaway position over young Smith and Waugh.

Amazotheamazing

JustinDee wrote: »

The ruling isn't to prevent the Pac Islands teams getting good. The transferability of an international player from one country to another is farcical. This is now prevented. There is no legal restraint anywhere that can stop a naturalised player declaring for a country. What can be adjusted is the amount of time it takes for a player to become selectable for a country. Things will never revert to the stupid way it was before.
The current ruling does not have a long standing place in rugby history. It was only introduced after the RWC99.

Keith Gleeson never played 'A' level for Australia, by the way. He was born in Ireland and brought up in Aussie so he quite rightly had the choice to declare for either. He chose Ireland even though he was tipped at the time for the breakaway position over young Smith and Waugh.

Sorry, Australian Barbarians, which was enough to rule out another guy playing for Scotland due to the rule change.

Monty Burnz

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

By the by, Ireland has a specific poaching policy under the guise of "project players" so let's not pretend we're whiter than white. Recently we capped SA's Brett Wilkinson at A level, Diack is now Irish qualified (afaik) and we hope to poach Strauss in another season. Seemingly 1 out of the 6 NIQ's must come within the remit of a project player.

Thinking over the last 20 or so years, I can name Andy Ward, Keith Gleeson (perhaps - didn't he have Irish parents?), and Isaac Boss as players who might be considered 'poached' - perhaps there are more? Not exactly an epidemic though.

JustinDee

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Sorry, Australian Barbarians, which was enough to rule out another guy playing for Scotland due to the rule change.

Ok doke. I thought highest Aussie level he played was U-20 or U21 as far as I remembered.
The Aussie 'A' level side was called 'Australian Barbarians' before changing to Australia 'A' and then back to 'Australian Barbarians' again. Jason Jones-Hughes dumped Australia and went to Wales (he was up against Grey, Herbert, Little and Horan so probably didn't fancy the competition). Don't know how Wales got away with that one. Must have been timing.

I know it was before the rules were changed so is largely irrelevant, but when did John Gallagher play for England? I remember he played for Irish Exiles team but that was about it.

The only sport I know that allows players to jump nation to nation is a sport where the franchise/club element of it is far stronger than that of the international element (ie. rugby league). Cricket does it to a certain degree (Irish playing for England being allowed to return after three wilderness years).
International rugby is the pinnacle of rugby union and I hope that never, ever changes. One way to ruin this status quo is permit the pre-2000 international transfer market to resume.

JustinDee

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Thinking over the last 20 or so years, I can name Andy Ward, Keith Gleeson (perhaps - didn't he have Irish parents?), and Isaac Boss as players who might be considered 'poached' - perhaps there are more? Not exactly an epidemic though.

Off the top of my head:
Jim Staples
Simon Geoghegan
Rob Saunders
Dion O'Cuinneaghain
Rob Henderson
Kevin Maggs
Simon Easterby
Guy Easterby
Matty Mostyn
Ross Nesdale
Chris Saverimutto
Kurt McQuilkin
Jason Holland made the 'A's.

All qualified via heritage ruling.
Out of the current player pool, Tom Court, Isaac Boss and Mick McCarthy all qualify to play for Ireland. The important thing is that they cannot play for any other country now. They have committed.

irishbucsfan

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I don't know, when England take the pitch with several "non-English" players, you have to ask what's the point of International rugby anymore, imo. England have the most players, the most money and an established pro league, and yet they lead the way among top teams in terms of poaching.

If Int rugby isn't really about where you're from, what is it about?

And if it isn't about where you're from, why stop players from moving to another country? Remember, players used to be able to switch, John Gallagher was born in England, won a RWC with NZ and played with England and for Ireland A. Brian Smith played for Australia and Ireland. Even recently Keith Gleeson played for Australia A and Ireland. Let's not pretend the current rules have some long standing place in rugby.

Would the Islands be better if some sort of leeway was introduced?

By the by, Ireland has a specific poaching policy under the guise of "project players" so let's not pretend we're whiter than white. Recently we capped SA's Brett Wilkinson at A level, Diack is now Irish qualified (afaik) and we hope to poach Strauss in another season. Seemingly 1 out of the 6 NIQ's must come within the remit of a project player.

What's your point here?

You don't like the mercenary effects of the current rules, such as Flutey and the like playing for England... So you support a rule change that would allow and ENCOURAGE players to switch nations?

Could you clarify?

Monty Burnz

JustinDee wrote: »

Off the top of my head:
Jim Staples
Simon Geoghegan
Rob Saunders
Dion O'Cuinneaghain
Rob Henderson
Kevin Maggs
Simon Easterby
Guy Easterby
Matty Mostyn
Ross Nesdale
Chris Saverimutto
Kurt McQuilkin
Jason Holland made the 'A's.

All qualified via heritage ruling.
Out of the current player pool, Tom Court, Isaac Boss and Mick McCarthy all qualify to play for Ireland. The important thing is that they cannot play for any other country now. They have committed.

I thought we were talking about guys who qualified via residence, rather than due to their parentage?

I'd be pretty p***ed off if someone told me my child couldn't play for Ireland just because they grew up somewhere else.

Amazotheamazing

JustinDee wrote: »

Ok doke. I thought highest Aussie level he played was U-20 or U21 as far as I remembered.
The Aussie 'A' level side was called 'Australian Barbarians' before changing to Australia 'A' and then back to 'Australian Barbarians' again. Jason Jones-Hughes dumped Australia and went to Wales (he was up against Grey, Herbert, Little and Horan so probably didn't fancy the competition). Don't know how Wales got away with that one. Must have been timing.

I know it was before the rules were changed so is largely irrelevant, but when did John Gallagher play for England? I remember he played for Irish Exiles team but that was about it.

The only sport I know that allows players to jump nation to nation is a sport where the franchise/club element of it is far stronger than that of the international element (ie. rugby league). Cricket does it to a certain degree (Irish playing for England being allowed to return after three wilderness years).
International rugby is the pinnacle of rugby union and I hope that never, ever changes. One way to ruin this status quo is permit the pre-2000 international transfer market to resume.

Not sure when Gallagher played for England, they had "where are you now?" interview with him in the Sunday Times recently where he mentioned playing for England, iirc, after he left league. I could be mistaken though. I was surprised because he would have been in an Irish A squad around the same time.

Amazotheamazing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What's your point here?

You don't like the mercenary effects of the current rules, such as Flutey and the like playing for England... So you support a rule change that would allow and ENCOURAGE players to switch nations?

Could you clarify?

I would like if players could opt down the divisions. eg, a player could move from Eng back to Samoa etc.

I think it's nonsense to allow England get away with poaching players on the back of their pro league and still pretend everything is fine in the game.

JustinDee

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I would like if players could opt down the divisions. eg, a player could move from Eng back to Samoa etc.

I think it's nonsense to allow England get away with poaching players on the back of their pro league and still pretend everything is fine in the game.

You're actually talking two seperate issues there.
If you think residency is being abused now, it is nothing compared to what would happen if the proposal mentioned in this stupid article ever came to pass.
I'm sure NZ are just heartedly concerned for the Pac Islands. Would have nothing to do with the plethora of Kiwis playing for Samoa and Tonga surely. NZ struggle with halfback position and Samoa happen to have a Kiwi playing very very well for them in that position, for example.

As for England targetting players, the players themselves have a say in the matter too. England are targetting the best player pool available to them and that includes players who want to play for them and qualify to do so.
Just extend the residency to five years and it will change things if it really is a problem. Allowing a free-for-all will alter the international game for the worst (not forgetting that the game's main revenue stream is international level, by a country mile either).
Had NZ the money to keep all players it might want at its disposal, this latest whinge wouldn't be happening and you can bet your keyster that they wouldn't be releasing anyone to any other countries in case they come good.

irishbucsfan

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I would like if players could opt down the divisions. eg, a player could move from Eng back to Samoa etc.

I think it's nonsense to allow England get away with poaching players on the back of their pro league and still pretend everything is fine in the game.

That would mean creating a technical division between England and Samoa.

If I was Samoan I certainly would not support that.

CatFromHue

the article isnt very well written and is a bit confusing:

"It would be a major surprise if Samoa receives much investment. They pocketed £2.2 million the last time around and that will most likely be their lot.

The Tier One nations shared £14 million in the same funding cycle and then voted to award themselves another £1 million each in every World Cup year. The IRB revel in their supposed generosity yet they granted the richest nations - who have massive broadcast and sponsorship deals in place and major revenue-generating power - more money than they did Samoa."

by sharing 14m i presume thats between the 8 top tier teams ie 14/8 = 1.75m plus the extra 1m is only 550,000 more than samoa's 2.2. not a huge amount by any stretch of the imagination. that 1m will cover income generated from the 3 home nov internationals that won't be happening this year. the tri nations is reduced and no northern hemisphere team toured in oz, sa, or nz. the pacific nations cup to the best of my knowledge has not been affected by the world cup.

"Yet none of the Celts seemingly believe that England picking four New Zealanders, three South Africans, an American-Italian and a Tongan in their extended World Cup squad tarnishes the credibility of the game."

i think alot of people are not happy with this but england have broken no rules. there was alot of discussion on here about the residency rule and how people wanted it lengthened.

rosskind

JustinDee wrote: »

This has been discussed umpteen flippin' times.
Apart from Sivivatu, name players who are 'stolen' by NZ? Give examples. You won't be able to. Know why? It is a myth.

No, you're right, I couldn't name any (possibly because I don't follow them that much).

''the Celts were never going to sign off on a proposal that would have allowed the Pacific Island nations to retrieve All Blacks and Wallabies who were no longer required by New Zealand and Australia.''

But you can't ignore the hypocriscy in the above belief, that the Celtic nations are to blame.

CatFromHue

"the Celts were never going to sign off on a proposal that would have allowed the Pacific Island nations to retrieve All Blacks and Wallabies who were no longer required by New Zealand and Australia"

you cant have one rule for the pacific islanders and a different rule for other country's. this rule if brought in could actually work out badly for the kiwis. whats to stop a fella who is kiwi born but to english/irish/welsh/scots parents or grandparents getting a few all blacks caps and then deciding he wants to play for a home country. the pay he would get would be far in excess of what the kiwi's could offer him. luke McAllister would then be eligible to play for england. he would be a far better option than tindall.

then if you can switch allegiance internationally there is the case of what if a guy gets a few all black caps but then goes to england for a few years. after 3 years he would then be eligible for england. nick evans would fit in very nicely to the england team.

it could also reduce samoa, fiji, and tonga to new zealand B teams. what if after jerry collins and rodney so' oailo were deemed not good enough for the all blacks and went to play for samoa. what if there form became very good again and there was an injury crisis in the nz back row. would they be able to change back to being an all black?

profitius

The tri nations teams had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting Argentina into the tri nations. I think they wanted compensation which they got.

CIARAN_BOYLE

I believe the teams considered as Tier one are the SANZAR 3, the 6 nations grouping and Argentina.

Argentina, Australia, England, Ireland, France, Italy, New Zealand, Scotlad, South Africa and Wales

I can't understand how the Samoan's have a problem with the funding arrangements, they get 2.2 million and the 10 Tier one nations split 14 million or 1.4 million each.

finatron

I will be in new Zealand for the world cup and i fear the press will drive me mad while i am there !

JustinDee

finatron wrote: »

I will be in new Zealand for the world cup and i fear the press will drive me mad while i am there !

They will. Stick to selective internet news.

roycon

this article isnt worthy of publication on boards. with all due respect it is poorly constructed, biased and non-nonsensical. The financial times motto is always the way to look at a piece of journalism 'Without fear and without favour'. this has both fear and favour and so isnt actually jounalism at all. rather a misguided opinion piece from a narrow minded new zealander. French rugby does more for developing rugby than any other country in the world with english rugby a close second. french clubs take chance on young players - georgians,italians,argentinains,americans,spanish, portuguese, romanian,cameroonian to name but a few. how many foreign rugby teams are the super 15 or npc funding.none. the french league pays these guys huge money and treat them well. leicester tigers even brought over a whole family of samoans who they developed into world class rugby players(tuilagis)

crisco10

roycon wrote: »

this article isnt worthy of publication on boards. with all due respect it is poorly constructed, biased and non-nonsensical. The financial times motto is always the way to look at a piece of journalism 'Without fear and without favour'. this has both fear and favour and so isnt actually jounalism at all. rather a misguided opinion piece from a narrow minded new zealander. French rugby does more for developing rugby than any other country in the world with english rugby a close second. french clubs take chance on young players - georgians,italians,argentinains,americans,spanish, portuguese, romanian,cameroonian to name but a few. how many foreign rugby teams are the super 15 or npc funding.none. the french league pays these guys huge money and treat them well. leicester tigers even brought over a whole family of samoans who they developed into world class rugby players(tuilagis)

Put that way, its a rock and a hard place situation for England/France. They have a big openness toward foreign players in their domestic leagues which is good. If it were a closed shop, people would give out that only english/french players could play. BUT a natural corralary to that is going to be that you will pick up a few naturalised english/frenchmen along the way.

So which is it, a closed shop that is keeping tier 2 nations weak by not allowing their players to play week in week out in a top class league or a Tier 1 nation who has to rob players from tier 2?!

Gist of my point: Haters will always hate.

JonnyF

It's a non issue in my opinion.

Any Islanders that play for NZ do it because it's worth more to them financially and it's the pinacle of the game in that region. they take a calculated risk declaring for NZ and getting capped, they know that they can't play for Samoa/Tonga/Fiji once they get a cap but the value of an All Black cap to their Super Rugby or ML contracts is more than international rugby with another country.

The ruling on players switching countries had to be made. The situation was getting ridiculous, in the 1999 World Cup you had Stephen Bachop playing for Samoa, his brother Graeme playing for Japan, both of them with All Black caps already. And Samoa had Inga Tuigamala, a capped All Black, and Mike Umaga, Tana's brother.

It was a joke, I've no problem with players coming to England, France or Ireland playing three years deciding that they want to represent that country and doing it, but they shouldn't be able to swap their international team late in their careers once they don't make the Tier 1 team any more and drop down to a lower ranked team. We'd end up with a world cup like the Rugby League version where players pick and choose what country they want to play for and can be in one team's squad but then switch to a better country before the comp starts like Mark Calderwood did, he was named in Scotland's world cup squad before the last RLWC then got called into the English squad on the eve of the tournament due to injuries. It's a sham.

Funk It

I for one hope that the All Blacks finish the year with no trophy. They are seriously annoying me at this stage. They winged to get the World Cup, they dictated the rule changes, after their Rugby Football Union allowed England to have an all black strip, they turn into critics and their prime minster got involved, they are giving out that their players are wearing boots which aren't black , and now this...

Where can you draw the line. How many Islanders were lured into New Zealand and exploited for their rugby talents in exchange for monetary rewards. Sivivatu is Fijian for starters.

Little do the New Zealanders acknowledge that the captain of the All Blacks "Originals" was Dave Gallagher a Donegal man, they can sure pick and choose their roots and heritage.

Watch out for Samoa, Fiji and Tonga at the World Cup. Fiji put out a weakened side against the All Blacks, and Samoa have much more to bring on after the Australia game. This World Cup should be one of the best fought, even Japan have come on in leaps and bounds. As much as I respect All Black rugby, after all this carry on over the last few years, they have got everything that they want, and I would love to see ANY (yes, even England) other nation lift the cup this year

thomond2006

Funk It wrote: »

I for one hope that the All Blacks finish the year with no trophy. They are seriously annoying me at this stage. They winged to get the World Cup, they dictated the rule changes, after their Rugby Football Union allowed England to have an all black strip, they turn into critics and their prime minster got involved, they are giving out that their players are wearing boots which aren't black , and now this...

Where can you draw the line. How many Islanders were lured into New Zealand and exploited for their rugby talents in exchange for monetary rewards. Sivivatu is Fijian for starters.

ffs exploited? You make it sound like child trafficking!

JustinDee

Funk It wrote: »

I for one hope that the All Blacks finish the year with no trophy. They are seriously annoying me at this stage. They winged to get the World Cup, they dictated the rule changes, after their Rugby Football Union allowed England to have an all black strip, they turn into critics and their prime minster got involved, they are giving out that their players are wearing boots which aren't black , and now this...

"This" is a journalist. Not NZ the country, the team or a player. He's not even, according to his own logic, a Kiwi.

Funk It wrote: »

Where can you draw the line. How many Islanders were lured into New Zealand and exploited for their rugby talents in exchange for monetary rewards. Sivivatu is Fijian for starters

How about zip? Sivivatu has already been pointed out as a drifter. Who else? Name them. Careful you don't name players like Muliaina or the Soaio'alo brothers. They were brought up in NZ since they were nippers, for example. I don't think they'd appreciate being called non-Kiwis.

Funk It wrote: »

Little do the New Zealanders acknowledge that the captain of the All Blacks "Originals" was Dave Gallagher a Donegal man, they can sure pick and choose their roots and heritage

They visited where he came from on a previous visit. Loads of coverage of it. Hardly ignoring.

Funk It wrote: »

Watch out for Samoa, Fiji and Tonga at the World Cup

They're full of Kiwis. In a previous thread, I named every one of the NZers who played for the three Pac Islands teams. Samoa and Tonga had the least amount 'indigenous' players in their 22s (Samoa with 5 and Tonga with 3. Fiji had 9).

Funk It wrote: »

Fiji put out a weakened side against the All Blacks, and Samoa have much more to bring on after the Australia game

Once the ITM Cup games in NZ are out of the way, their squads will be bolstered. Why do you think that is?

Funk It

thomond2006 wrote: »

ffs exploited? You make it sound like child trafficking!

ok, my bad, but you can get the idea of what I was trying to say

JustinDee

Funk It wrote: »

ok, my bad, but you can get the idea of what I was trying to say

Yes. The problem is that it was so far off the mark, it was out of sight. Name the poaches.

Funk It

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes. The problem is that it was so far off the mark, it was out of sight. Name the poaches.

Look, I'm not trying to get into an argument, I was wrong and I will hold my hand up and admit it.

davidpfitz

How about Dave Gallagher? He was capped 36 times, 27 of them was as captain from 1903 to 1906. Born in Ramelton, Co. Donegal.

Monty Burnz

davidpfitz wrote: »

How about Dave Gallagher? He was capped 36 times, 27 of them was as captain from 1903 to 1906. Born in Ramelton, Co. Donegal.

It's like deja vu all over again.

Phonehead

What a pointless article! the writer never even thought through his argument and the possible implications if these changes were made. Honestly I'd say he was looking to stir it up and get public attention.

The article isn't inflammatory.

I agreed with a lot of it, and disagreed completely with other things. You'll note that it is an opinion piece blended with some not-so-well presented facts.

Should have come with free chill pills for all readers apparently.

Mr.Applepie

profitius wrote: »

And supposing the laws did change. That would benefit NZ and Australia even more. The likes of Nacewa could be called up to play for the AB's.

The precious... they want to steal the precious! *gives NZ the evil eye*

Luckycharm

Frank Bunce played for Western Samoa in the 1991 RWC and NZ in 1995 RWC.

Here is a good question when was the last time NZ or OZ sent their full team to play a test match away in one of the PAC islands?? Ireland played a full test match more recently then either nation.

MungBean

Deleted User wrote: »

The article isn't inflammatory.

I agreed with a lot of it, and disagreed completely with other things. You'll note that it is an opinion piece blended with some not-so-well presented facts.

Should have come with free chill pills for all readers apparently.

If he posted that on Boards he'd be banned for trolling. It was a poorly written, childish attempt at throwing a few digs in to Australia and the Celtic nations.

Nothing is likely to make the Australians want the Pacific Islands' best talent more than the bitter taste of defeat. What better way to depower Samoa than lure their next generation of players with a bag of money and a gold jersey?

Scotland, Ireland and Wales are also acutely aware that if Samoa could be given organisational stability and an economic footing, they could become an instant contender - not necessarily capable of winning a World Cup but capable of pushing the big five close.

That thought never strays far from northern minds, which is why proposed changes to the eligibility laws have been repeatedly rejected in the last few years.

I think the writer should have taken a few chill pills before he sat down to write that rubbish.