France push All Blacks to 80th minute in narrow Dunedin defeat

How much time are you wasting on these long, bitter rants?

Rugby is far from a free market. Rich men happy to lose millions on their plaything cause severe market distortion.

You can't be expected to understand the NZ justice system. The aims are to look after the victim and make reoffending less likely. Loss of job and income is considered counterproductive, instead they work with the employer to make the offender a better person and husband.

So, you think top rugby players’ wages ought to be kept artificially low, when in fact the forces of “demand and supply” mean that many can and indeed are commanding wages higher than you approve of, and even though players regularly get injured, and those injuries can be serious enough to cut short careers and even threaten lives, e.g. Steven Kitshoff.

.

As far as I can make out your objections amount to

1) they’ve sent a B team, which is not what we do and I don’t like it. Is there more to it than that? You haven’t replied to the points I made previously about sell out Tests and high ticket prices, so I take it reduced earnings are no longer part of your argument. Possibly you’re disappointed at not seeing Dupont et al., but a lot of New Zealanders think he is over rated anyway.

2) The Top 14 is paying players too much, leading to wage inflation around the world which is bad for the sport.

Firstly, young athletes have a range of sports to choose from, so rugby holding out the prospect of a lucrative, glamorous career helps attract talent.

Above all, market forces mean the French clubs earn a lot of money, and spend a large part of that money on relatively high wages, within a framework set by the league to maintain the health of the league. This framework includes the salary cap and Jiff rules which in effect limit the number of foreign stars the clubs employ and encourage the development of young talent, so there is a limit on Top14 demand. The Toulon of the 2010s is a thing of the past.

So yes, the French clubs cream off some top players - they are competitive sports teams, what do expect them to do with their money? - but there’s still a there’s a plentiful supply of great rugby players and coaches without French contracts. The troubles in England and Wales were down to mismanagement of those national bodies, and clubs themselves, not the French

So if you don’t want to let market forces determine wage levels, and you do want to prevent the French clubs from spending so much of their large incomes on players, how on earth do you want to set player wages?

Is the problem that NZ can’t pay so much as the Top 14 and you fear the best players will be lured away and/or you want NZ franchises to compete for leading international talent? Are you asking for NZ wage scales to be adopted as the maximum allowed, to achieve this? But in that case why not take Uruguay, or Spain, or Tonga or Samoa as the standard, so Samoa, a highly talented rugby nation, can keep Samoan players in Samoa, not see them leave for higher wages in NZ and elsewhere.

Rugby is played in lots of countries, with hugely varying levels of financial backing etc. Obviously, it’s more difficult for some than others, but aside for a limited amount of help from world rugby, it’s up to each one to make their sums add up, and make the most of the particular advantages their nation/club/franchise has. SA are not the richest, but are still highly successful, and I don’t hear them complaining about Top14 wages.

Many, particularly second tier, nations benefit from the Top14, and anyone genuinely concerned about the whole community of world rugby should welcome that. England and NZ have laid down rules so they can’t make the most of the French competition, which is up to them. But unlike some NZ fans and pundits, the English aren’t generally blaming their own woes on the French, rather they want reform of the English structure, and some are calling for lessons to learned from their neighbours across the channel. If NZ fans aren’t satisfied, I suggest they call for internal reform, not try to make the French scapegoats.

In my opinion, a breach of standards would be to include on your team players who beat up women, not to regularly send a B team on the summer tours for reasons of player welfare, which in all the years you’ve been doing this only some of the pundits and fans of a single country have made a stink about.

[my comments here are, of course, not aimed at all NZ fans and pundits]

That's a heck of a waste of words to argue against a point I didn't make! I didn't say they are less homegrown, just that they aren't the “shining light” you claim.

And if you don't think that the wages arms race instigated by mainly French clubs - but yes, Japan and previously England as well - hasn't led to wage inflation around the world you need to learn about the law of demand and supply.

Overall though, you seem to think that so long as you stay within the law it doesn't matter whether you flout the community standards practiced by everyone else. Thankfully not an attitude practiced by most rugby administrators around the world.

Sorry, I don’t think all your points hold water.

You agree that the Top14 was sticking within the rules. Describing it as ‘attack’ing international rugby isn’t fair. It’s simply doing it’s own thing, which benefits many other rugby nations too, more of which below. NZ rugby has one system of earning money, the French have another, and it looks to me like theirs is more successful, but that’s no reason to try and shoot it down. Unlike some NZ commentators, I haven’t heard any of the French expressing the wish to interfere with how NZ organise their domestic competition and finances. Different circumstances require different arrangements.

The way you talked about earning money from home internationals, it sounds as if you think the French B team are depriving NZ of income. Really? Instead accusing the French of acting badly, wouldn’t it be better to think of ways of improving the NZ system, even it’s just being more careful who’s invited on tour. It’s well known France never send out their top players in summer.

In any case, the charge of loss of income doesn’t seem to be backed by the facts. As far as I’m aware there haven’t been any complaints about the size of the TV deal. It’s been reported that the NZ- France summer internationals are sell outs, and since you or another New Zealander - I can’t remember which set of comments it was - was complaining about how outrageously high the ticket prices are, it doesn’t sound as if NZ rugby has lowered prices and been hit in the pocket - NZ can’t have it both ways.

If NZ were to have a rethink and follow the example of SA and Scotland to allow players who sign on with a Top14 team to play for the ABs, I think NZ could use the Top14 for its own benefit. Players often improve through being exposed to different approaches, and previously hidden talent can come to light. Cheslin Kolbe was overlooked by the SA main team, until his immense talent was showcased during his time at Toulouse. More recently, Jack Willis and Blair Kinghorn have both acknowledged that Toulouse has helped them broaden and develop their skills - Willis has done quite a lot of interviews which are freely accessible online, if you want to hear what he says. Scotland have benefited, but England haven’t because of their self-imposed rules. From what Willis said around the time of the WC when he had special dispensation to play for England in consideration of the Wasps debacle, it seems Toulouse encourage their foreign players in their international ambitions, rather than acting as an insurmountable obstacle.

I don’t see where your point about home grown talent is coming from. The vast majority of the French team IS home grown talent. Listen to Squidge’s or 2 Cents podcasts on the subject before the last WC. Mauvaka and Moefana both were born in islands which are part of a French overseas territory, came to France young, trained there and have French nationality, Meafou was rejected by Aussie clubs as too large, and was advised to go to France where they appreciate size to get an opportunity to continue his career - do you think he should have been left on the scrap heap in Oz? The only French international I can think of who came from NZ is Uini Atonio, he doesn’t seem to have been appreciated in NZ and has played his entire senior club career at La Rochelle, where he’ll become a player/coach next season; he’s actually of Samoan heritage. I’ve read that NZ was interested in Patrick Tuifua, but he was born in the French territory of New Caledonia, not NZ and is moving to Toulon. Marchand, Aldegheri, Baille, Gros, Cros, Jelonche, Alldritt, Ollivon, Dupont, Penaud, LBB Lucu, Ramos, Fikou, Barrassi, Villiere etc, are all indisputably French, Ntamack is French on his mother’s side, 2nd generation French on his father’s side and has played for Toulouse since infancy, Pasolo Tuilagi has lived in France since the age of 3 and is French, similarly Joshua Brennan. I believe they have both declared their desire to play for the country where they grew up, not Samoa or Ireland. Flament, it’s true, is from Belgium, but his talents could hardly have flourished fully in a team which almost certainly isn’t fully professional. A rugby side is 15 with 8 on the bench in France as everywhere else, packed with all these talented native players, they’re not going to suck the life out of other nations. In fact, there’s a counter example. Capuozzo was born and raised in France, and I’ve heard it said both that he began playing for Italy is because he didn’t think he’d make the French team, or alternatively, that he preferred to play for the country of his paternal grandparents.

I can’t see why you say NZ, England and Ireland are more homegrown than that. De Groot, Lomax (Aus), Frizzell, Fainga’anuku (Tonga) and Christie (Scotland) and other ABs weren’t born in NZ, some of them played for other countries at U20 level, and isn’t your new guy from the Netherlands? England welcomes players born abroad, eg Manu Tuilagi, and Feyi Waboso (born and grew up in Wales who could really do with his talent). And as for Ireland, they are arguably the least home grown of the lot, as Jamison Gibson Park, James Lowe, Bundee Aki and Mack Hansen were not only not born in Ireland, they weren’t brought up there either. This is not a criticism, as I don’t think it’s an issue to get hung up about.

If you’re referring to the number of foreign players in the Top14, ProD2, I reckon it’s a good thing. Players from upcoming second tier nations like Uruguay, Spain and Portugal are exposed to top flight competition and can play fulltime - where else would they get such a good chance to hone their skills? Argentina too is strengthened when it comes to the WC, even if not all their Top 14 players can play in every set of internationals - they still play in a lot of them. Then there the ex-internationals who get a chance to earn decent money before they retire, and enjoy thrill of French rugby. I reckon they deserve that and it shows good money can be earned from rugby, which must help stop talented youngsters from turning to other sports.

I don’t think the Top14 should be charged with making rugby financially unsustainable. I don’t think its existence was the reason Wasps, London Irish and Worcester Warriors went bust. Covid, the English system and the clubs themselves were to blame. I don’t think the Top 14 is the threat you think it is to other nations - the Top 14 and Pro D2 may be large and wealthy, but they’re not infinitely large mopping up all the top players from across the world, they have to obey strictly enforced rules about a compulsory number of Jiff players and a salary cap, which if you count the special allowances for marquee players etc, is comparable in size to the English one. That’s not to say some of the French clubs aren’t very rich, have excellent facilities etc., it’s just they can’t spend all their money on players wages.

Yes we really should be bringing this discussion to a close but I feel that I have to pull you up on a couple of points.

First, whether the top 14 plays during the window isn't the issue. It actively prevents the first choice France internationals from playing for their country and holds its final so late that the participants can't play at the start of the window.

No other league attacks international rugby like this. It's not a matter of dictating someone else's selection policy, it's a matter of calling out the only country that doesn't act in solidarity with the rest of the sport. We have a system where a country only earns money from home tests and every other nation honours that by sending teams that help their opponents maximise revenue.

And its a totally false equivalence to try to argue that when the likes of NZ, Ireland and England are doing the same by only selecting from home based talent. We're only talking one or two players not the whole team and in any case these countries believe that the team would otherwise not play so well due to availability, travel, workload and cohesion.

As for the “shining light for rugby” argument, yes it's great that players get employment, not so great when other countries lose access to them, either permanently because they end up playing for France or temporarily due to being overworked or told not to play. And we haven't even talked about the wages arms race which has had a huge negative impact on the financial sustainability of the global game.

French fans are being defensive about this issue

Yeah, I can only think it’s the language barrier.

Usual “unbiased” NZ/AB commentary, tmo was correct in all the decisions, trust me too much egg on face if AB fielded a 2nd string side, if you have 4 or 5 injuries assume there is squad depth to cover. Score reflects the game - narrow AB victory!!! Can’t blame everyone all the time.