Rugby News: RA signs 'landmark' deal with Japan, Wallaby joins French powerhouse, Lealiifano starts against Fiji

Test matches are played at a higher intensity. 14 Tests is about the limit before performances suffer

There is a reason why only one RWC winner has come from the north!

Regarding SA finances its simple to explain much like the much bigger loss that NZR had and that is down to unusual costs.. NZR had a loss of A$46.75m while SARU had a loss of A$0.22m so SARU made a loss of A$46.53m less than NZR. SARU paid A$27.52m to the URC and EPCR which I think they will have to pay again next year as they buy their way into being shareholders which means in two years time if income stats the same they will suddenly have A$27.52m to send on other rugby things that they don't have currently. So yes they made a loss in order to become full members of the URC and EPCR which will go from a cost to an income. So yes they made a loss but for a good reason. Now we come to why SANZAAR nations make bigger losses in WC years. The cashcow of European Rugby is the 6Ns and that is played in full every year regardless of WCs or Lions or anything else, it is the biggest generator for the Unions over 4 years and is the biggest generator of income in Rugby over a 4 year period (even more that the WC). The cashcow of the South the RC is not played in full in WC years which costs each union 1 home game (as each union normally plays 3 rounds plus the unofficial 4th round). Losing a home game from the RC is why SANZAAR teams make bigger losses in WC years than 6N teams. All the teams will play WC warmup but the 6N teams always look to play 1-2 home games with 1-2 away games in Europe. This year by the time the WC roles around Ireland will have played 4 home games while Oz will have played 2, NZ will have played 2 and South Africa 2. While NZ and SA may make more from the England game they will also be filling the English coffers. So Ireland are down 1 home game on a normal year but hope to offset it against the WC revenue. NZ etc are down 4 home games which can't be covered by WC revenue. If the SH unions can't work out that home games should always make you more money than away games they are always going to struggle financially. I am not sure why the RC teams are willing to sacrifice the only competition they own and control for a tournament that they don't. You know the 6N wouldn't which is why get control the richest competition because nothing is getting in its way.

So John Afoa who played in a league with 30 rounds was ok to play to the Saders but other players shouldn't. If players in NZ aren't meant to play professional rugby for more than 6 months why were Saders happy to sign a prop who had just come off a 9 month season. I know the standard between Test and Club rugby (though club is catching up due to time spent together). In 2022 RM played 24 games of which 12 were at test level. If test is so much harder why is it ok for RM to play 24 weeks but it is bad for players not good enough to play 24 games at SR level. BB played 22 games. Savea 22 games. Coddie Taylor 22 games. So I am not sure what the problem is with having SRP players playing the same number of professional games as the test players and at a lower level as SRP is. The simple thing is that NZR are increasing the number of games the SRP players are going to be playing as SRP or test level so even they don't agree with you.

Both unions must agree for an club/team to play a recognized game between two teams from two different countries. For inter nation leagues like URC and SRP this is done by signing up to the league and giving approval from them. Spain didn't give the approval so Jags couldn't locate in Spain. The game between SA and NZ must get approval from England as it is going to be played in England. Surprised you didn't know. From the NZ Hearld dated 07/07/20. Rugby's 'Aratipu' review wants Super Rugby scrapped in favour of a transtasman competition, according to a report. The new competition would also include "a team from the Pacific", while SANZAAR – the southern hemisphere's governing body at the moment – would be left to run the Rugby Championship involving the test teams, Mediaworks reports. Super Rugby was to have proceeded with teams from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina, following the axing of Japan's Sunwolves from 2021. But Mediaworks says sources have revealed "SANZAAR's days of running the (Super Rugby) competition appear to be over from next year". SARU made their announcement in 29/09/20 again in the Herald 2.5 months after the Herald had broken the news and what NZR have been pushing for seems exactly like what they got. So a NZ newspaper breaks the news 2.5months before SA decided to leave but its all SA who done it.

SRP is 17 rounds, RC is 6 rounds, July and Nov Tests is 6 rounds for a total of 29 rounds or about 7 months. Sounds like you are unable to appreciate the difference in playing standards between SR/provincial rugby and Test rugby. There is a difference. As for South African rugby, they made a financial loss last year and that loss is expected to grow this year given it is a world cup year -- https://sarugby.co.za/news-features/articles/2023/05/02/sa-rugby-reports-minor-deficit-despite-record-income/ Saders used John Afoa from the Pro D2 and a Bristol frontrower to cover long-term injuries does this mean that SRP also has an injury problem. Remind me again where John Afoa came from before he played in the NH? And what kind of game is rugby? it is 33 weeks long plus another 7 weeks with European games added in. A 40-week/game non-Test season is medically unsound if not dangerous.

In 2020 when NZR said they were leaving SR to set up their own competition this is so wrong I can't believe it. from SRP the host union must approve a team playing in their country in an international competition this is so wrong I can't believe it. The approval of both unions and SANZAAR is required. It is why NZR were not able to get the Oz SR sides to go against RA this is so wrong I can't believe it. A job not so well done.

Money was behind both deals. Not my fault SANZAR followed the money while European rugby did not. When England and Scotland joined in 1996 both Italy and Romania were retained even though it would have made more money short term to remove them. Samoa even made the WC quarters in 1995 while none of Wales, Romania or Italy did so its not like they were rubbish. It was the second world cup quarter they made having also done it in 1991 when again Wales, Italy and Romania all failed to make the quarters. Fast forward to 1999 and both Fiji and Samoa finished 2nd in their groups. Yes it was driven by money but SANZAR chose it not anyone else knowing it would shut the PIs out of a competition they had been in for a while and had improved them at test level.

Not really. A player born in Tonga or Samoa can come and play in Europe under the KOLPAC ruling which means that they are not counted as non-European players. It is why all the players currently playing for Samoa and Tonga who were born in NZ or Oz are not considered part of the two OS players for European leagues. However players with only OZ or NZ ancestry have much harder path to playing in Europe which is why more of these players go to Japan instead of Europe. Did you ever wonder why South Africa also lost a load of players to European teams they are also KOLPAC players. Cricket has the same law that effects it for players playing in England & Wales.

What BS you spout, as it was through bad money management that was the cause. You have no idea, & just assuming

Since when does 7s effect 15s and yes European nations are doing 7s and women's rugby. You may have missed the part where there are 7 professional women's team and only 1 is outside of Europe. Europe has two professional leagues and its third one is longer that NZ one so yes money is being spent. So the Yanks gave you 20m in sponsorship for women's rugby or was it the NZR sold part of the Union and is using part of that to fund the women's game.

Yes I meant u20s side. Do you not think that they are not a yoyo team. Look out for my next article (if approved) and you will understand why. Japan and Fiji and Samoa have each been jumping between the U20s Championship and Trophy. When Italy and then Georgia stayed in the Championship Samoa and Fiji started dropping down while Japan improved to get in to the Championship in 2015 for the first time since it was 12 teams. First Italy were promoted, then Georgia then that gave Spain and Portugal a turn (both have improved at under 18). Between them they have made 3/4 finals and are on course to make their 5th. Spain almost beat Samoa but Samoa who had dropped from the Championship just got past them in Extra time while Japan beat Portugal by 1pt in 2019. Maybe look at why European nations outside of the 6Ns are getting better while everyone else does not.

So who decided to remove the PIs in 1995 with the formation of SANZAR that took over the SR10s and turned it into Super 12s. Oz only had one vote unless you are telling be that they were the king makers and the other two unions were subservient to them. In 1995 Tonga took part in Super 10 but no PI team was included in 1996, instead each Union took an extra team for themselves and so removed the PI place. The 3 big nations chose to only include themselves in SH rugby top level at test and international club level. NH didn't. They set out a deal for Italy and Romania to be a part of international club rugby and also set up how a nation could join the 5Ns. Italy fulfilled this and were given entry while Romania continued their decline and eventually withdrew. Would help if you provide some facts to counter but I guess I must read between the lines of what you are trying to say.

Have you even tried looking at a big majority of players from PI heritage that are in Aotearoa? Obviously NOT, as your ridiculous Pom assumptions are again getting the better of you. To even call the PI’s ‘ KOLPAC’ people shows your ignorance towards both the Polynesian & Melanesian cultures, that some of these players come from. The only reason most go to Europe is the lure of big money, as with Japan.

I know why the URC let SA in but didn’t Arg its well documented. In 2017 following the ejection of Cheetahs and Kings from Super Rugby, SARU came to the Pro 12 and wanted to added teams to it. Pro12 agreed to take two teams with another two additional teams to be added at a certain date in the future once certain conditions were meet. SA paid a set fee to the league which was used to fly the teams down to SA and gave each team £500k to cover the extra squad costs. In 2020 when NZR said they were leaving SR to set up their own competition the SARU contacted the Pro 14 to activate the clause to add two additional teams. This resulted in SARU (not URC) removing the Cheetahs and replacing them with the 4 SR teams. SARU knowing their legal obligation told SR that they could still provide 4 teams and as a sign of good faith would pay the costs to have the Cheetahs in Oz while covid was on, but it was rejected. When the Jags tried to get into the URC it was rejected as they had no agreement with the URC for a team and the URC only wanted 16 teams and no Union (Ireland, Scotland, Italy, Wales or South Africa) were willing to have the Jags take one of their spots. Its easy to explain. You still have not explain why SA who where legally obliged to send 4 teams to SR and Argentina who were obliged to send 1 were not made to act on their legally binding agreement. If Wales only sends 3 teams to the URC they will have to pay massive fines, Also as you are aware from SRP the host union must approve a team playing in their country in an international competition. It is why NZR were not able to get the Oz SR sides to go against RA as they needed RA approval to play in SR just like the Force had to be approved to play in Rapid Rugby along with all those teams involved. The Spanish Union didn’t approve the Jags being in Spain as they have their own professional league and were busy getting the Castilla y León Iberians ready to play in the European Super Cup which was kicking off in 2021 the same time the Jags wanted to set up in Spain. As the goal is to make the European Super Cup the 4th top professional league in Europe and Spain to have 2 teams they did not want another league or Union playing on their soil. So even if the URC had said yes WR would have stopped them. Like the Dura setting up in Oz the Jags would of had no issues and Oz would have approved it. Can you tell me want part of NZ Aratipu has not been implemented by NZR apart from the SRP not being what they wanted because RA refused.

Can you confirm that they have. NZ was built around games in Japan and the Japan women playing in Women's league in NZ. NZ deal also dealt with test sides and SRP teams. We know from this article Oz are going to work with schoolboys (not mentioned in NZ deal). If all the Japan women are going to NZ how can they go play in Oz at the same time in a league that doesn't exist. If Japan wanted to make the same deal with both Nations it would have done a deal with both at the same time. The Oz deal seems to involve games being played in Oz and Japan while NZ aren't allowed to play any SRP teams during the NPC in NZ so will now send them off to Japan. Its a sad state when NZR and SRP teams are making deals to take their teams away from home rather that play more home games.

The facts don't stack up though. SRP is 17 rounds, RC is 6 rounds, July and Nov Tests is 6 rounds for a total of 29 rounds or about 7 months. Add in that both NZR and RA are both looking to play more tests and more games with their SRP teams that the season is too short in the minds of the Unions who currently employ a shorter season. T14 has the highest attendances of any club competition in Rugby and it is 33 weeks long plus another 7 weeks with European games added in. And yet Top 14, Premiership and URC have all seen attendances rise by 25-100% while SR has seen it half in the same period. Joker Contracts have been around for years as its unfair to punish a team if their play is out for 6 months of the season with an injury. Saders used John Afoa from the Pro D2 and a Bristol frontrower to cover long-term injuries does this mean that SRP also has an injury problem. English clubs went belly up because they lost access to their fans for 2 years. Others like Irish and even tigers then ran into problems because they suddenly had 2 less games at home. For Tigers thats at least £1m loss for the two games. For years SA fans believed that they were different from NH too and that they were right. Then all their players left as they couldn't afford to pay them. SA now plays 57% more home games and has a wage cap of 60% more than they did in SR. How do you think they can afford the increase. If its a case that URC now earns 60% more than SR did in 2019 then SRP teams are in alot of trouble.

You continue to judge SH crowds according to European norms, BNHF. You really shouldn't. Fact is rugby everywhere can only run for six months of the year; players need a break and so do crowds. That upcoming concussion lawsuit could very well put the brakes on attempts to lengthen the professional season up North. Your NH clubs (especially French) appetite to keep signing up new players is a reflection of the no doubt high injury attrition rate. The rise of these "joker" contracts is another symptom of that as are the English clubs going belly up. NZR introduced sabbaticals because they are realistic; they know they can't compete financially overseas so they devised a compromise. Seems to be working for the moment but compromises are never perfect.

Nah it’s you that doesn’t know!!

It was the URC that didn't want an Argentine presence, even based in Spain. (happy to allow South Africa in, though; ever wonder why?) Rugby's appeal in Australia was never all that strong to start and it's worse now; an extra team in Australia may have diluted or fragmented the code's appeal. The appeal of such a team (and the Drua as well) would be largely ethnic. This is obvious in Australia already with the ex-pat South African, Kiwi and Islander populations driving the code. And that NZ Aratipu review was a whole-of-game review implemented at the same time when their Super Rugby franchise licences were expiring. Australia should have done the same.