Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Report: Kanaloa Pasifika threatens New Zealand Rugby with legal action over Super Rugby snub

By Online Editors
(Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)

Kanaloa Pasifika have threatened New Zealand Rugby (NZR) with legal action should they not be included in next year’s revamped Super Rugby competition.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to RNZ, the franchise has laid a formal complaint with NZR after it was revealed Moana Pasifika and the Fijian Drua were NZR’s preferred partners to join a 12-team Super Rugby competition with 10 teams from New Zealand and Australia in 2022.

The Moana Pasifika franchise is backed by notable New Zealand Rugby figures, including ex-All Blacks Sir Bryan Williams and Sir Michael Jones, as well as New Zealand Rugby Players Association (NZRPA) boss Rob Nichol.

Video Spacer

Healthspan Elite Performance of the Week | How Richie Mo’unga bossed the Wallabies in Bledisloe Cup III

Video Spacer

Healthspan Elite Performance of the Week | How Richie Mo’unga bossed the Wallabies in Bledisloe Cup III

However, Kanaloa Pasifika chief executive Tracy Atiga claims NZR breached its own bidding process on the basis that Moana Pasifika was enlisted as a preferred partner even though the franchise did not participate in the process.

“Moana Pasifika was invited to participate in the process but declined,” Atiga reportedly penned in a letter to the New Zealand Rugby Board of Directors, according to RNZ.

“NZRPA, Moana Pasifika and NZ Rugby all confirm that no bid was submitted. Kanaloa Pasifika submitted a full application and met all conditions as required in accordance with the different phases of the process.”

Furthermore, Kanaloa – backed by a raft of former All Blacks such as Jerome Kaino and Joe Rokocoko – claimed that NZR was compromised by having at least two employees involved with the Moana Pasifika bid.

ADVERTISEMENT

The letter also reportedly criticised NZR for seeking endorsement from the NZRPA when it was heavily involved with the Moana Pasifika bid.

“NZRPA are compromised as they represent the best interests of NZ Rugby contracted players not PI Nations players. Therefore, any process involving NZRPA in respect to Pasifika is a direct conflict of interest.”

Atiga also felt aggrieved that NZR’s decision to decline Kanaloa’s bid stemmed from the belief that the franchise did not have the financial support to join Super Rugby.

“Nigel [Cass] and Brent [Impey] were already aware that we had various parties willing to invest in Kanaloa, but we would not be able to provide a letter of commitment until the terms of the licence were put in writing,” she wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We urged NZ Rugby to put the terms of licence in writing and/or provide a letter of intent to appease our investor groups but to no avail.”

Subsequently, RNZ reports that Atiga has said that legal action will be required should NZR fail to reverse its decision and grant them a license to compete in the new-look Super Rugby.

Pacific Rugby Players Welfare (PRPW), led by chief executive and former Samoan international Daniel Leo, has also expressed concern over Kanaloa Pasifika’s exclusion from Super Rugby.

“The recent announcement of Moana Pasifika as New Zealand Rugby’s primary partner candidate has raised a number of concerns that cast doubt over the fairness of NZR’s selection process amidst a number of perceived conflicts of interest,” a PRPW press release, published on Thursday, read.

“While PRPW have been in consultation with a number of groups throughout the bidding process, we felt it was important we refrained from being solely involved or publicly supporting any one of the ‘Pasifika’ bids in order not to bias the selection process or give any one party a perceived upper hand when it came to the selection criteria and process.

“We are therefore disappointed it has been brought to our attention that a number of parties including NZR board members and the NZRPA may not have taken those same precautions, involving themselves heavily in both the formation of the Moana Pasifika group and the subsequent selection of Moana Pasifika as the preferred partner of NZR rugby – presenting what we feel is a clear conflict of interest.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Fresh Starts | Episode 1 | Will Skelton

ABBIE WARD: A BUMP IN THE ROAD

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 8

James Cook | The Big Jim Show | Full Episode

New Zealand victorious in TENSE final | Cathay/HSBC Sevens Day Three Men's Highlights

New Zealand crowned BACK-TO-BACK champions | Cathay/HSBC Sevens Day Three Women's Highlights

Japan Rugby League One | Steelers v Sungoliath | Full Match Replay

Rugby Europe Women's Championship | Netherlands v Spain

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

M
Mzilikazi 6 minutes ago
Swashbuckling Hurricanes and Harlequins show scrum still matters

I always enjoy a good scrum based article. Thanks, Nick. The Hurricanes are looking more and more the team to beat down here in Australasia. They are a very well balanced team. And though there are far fewer scrums in the game these days, destructive power in that area is a serious weapon, especially an attacking scrum within in the red zone. Aumua looked very good as a young first year player, but then seemed to fade. He sure is back now right in the picture for the AB’s. And I would judge that Taukei’aho is in a bit of a slump currently. Watching him at Suncorp a few weeks ago, I thought he was not as dominant in the game as I would have expected. I am going to raise an issue in that scrum at around the 13 min mark. I see a high level of danger there for the TH lifted off the ground. He is trapped between the opposition LH and his own powerful SR. His neck is being put under potentially dangerous pressure. The LH has, in law , no right to use his superior scrummaging skill….getting his head right in on the breastbone of the TH…..to force him up and off the ground. Had the TH popped out of the scrum, head up and free, there is no danger, that is a clear penalty to the dominant scrum. The law is quite clear on this issue: Law 37 Dangerous play and restricted practices in a scrum. C:Intentionally lifting an opponent off their feet or forcing them upwards out of the scrum. Sanction: Penalty. Few ,if any, referees seem to be aware of this law, and/or the dangers of the situation. Matthew Carly, refereeing Clermont v Munster in 2021, penalised the Munster scrum, when LH Wycherly was lifted very high, and in my view very dangerously, by TH Slimani. Lifting was coached in the late ‘60’s/70’s. Both Lions props, Ray McLouglin, and “Mighty Mouse” McLauchlan, were expert and highly successful at this technique. I have seen a photo, which I can’t find online atm, of MM with a NZ TH(not an AB) on his head, MM standing upright as the scrum disintegrates.

3 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE How are Australian sides faring in Super Rugby Pacific? How are Australian sides faring in Super Rugby Pacific?
Search