Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

The reasons why the Pacific Islands Super Rugby franchise bid has been rejected

(Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)

Super Rugby chiefs are struggling to find a viable new format but one thing is clear they do not want Fiji, Tonga and Samoa to enter a Pacific Islands franchise which leaves their players open to further raids from big spending clubs in Europe and Japan.

ADVERTISEMENT

The concept of a Pacific Islands team has been gathering support around the world as one way to try and limit the player drain but now SANZAAR, which controls the Super Rugby competition, has thrown out a bid to establish a team from the three islands

Fiji RU CEO John O’Connor released a statement admitting they had entered a bid with SANZAAR, which is currently reviewing the competition structure ahead of the end of the broadcast deal in 2020, but it had failed. “The Fiji Rugby Union has today confirmed that it had on behalf of itself, the Tonga and Samoa Rugby Unions submitted a bid for a Pacific Island Super Rugby franchise to be based in Fiji to SANZAAR on the 30th of June 2018 in compliance with the bid timelines,” he said .

“The CEO of FRU confirmed that SANZAAR had acknowledged the bid and was impressed with the quality and professionalism of the bid considering the short time duration provided to put the bid together. After several rounds of meetings and discussions with SANZAAR and submissions of other required documentations, SANZAAR on the 28th of August 2018 had informed FRU that the bid was unsuccessful.

“SANZAAR determined that requirements around defined key performance criteria including an ability to deliver a commercial uplift in both broadcasting and guaranteed underwrite would render the viability of a Pacific Super Team under the proposed SANZAAR commercial model unsustainable.”

Fiji had been searching for overseas financial support and had spoken to Richard Fale who was proposing a franchise based in Hawaii and backed by American based money but had not been involved in plans to gain the support of actor Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.

O’Connor added:“FRU is committed to seeking pathways for our players but will not render our support to any bid which does not support giving opportunities for players who are eligible to represent the three Pacific Islands.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The FRU did not reveal the details of the financial bid but it was estimated it needed a minimum annual investment of US$12 million.“The decision was made within the Pacific that financially it didn’t stack up,” Pacific Islands Players’ association chief Aayden Clarke told Radio New Zealand.“The losers in that, if they were to put all their eggs in that basket of having a [Super Rugby] franchise team, would probably be community rugby and club rugby.”

The Super Rugby competition currently has 15 teams playing in five nations having dropped from 18 franchises and under the current review there appears to be serious concerns that the Japan based Sunwolves could be dumped when changes come into place in 2021.

Watch: Rugby World Cup Japan city guide – Kumamoto

Video Spacer

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 6 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

145 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks' 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks'
Search