IRB suspends Fiji funding

"Irregularities" in Fiji's financial reporting has seen the IRB withdrawal it's huge financial investment in the country's union.

It is thought that country's unelected military government that ceased power may be implicated.

If this situation devolves it could result in Fiji being suspended from
International competition either through exclusion or financial impotence. It certainly had implications for young Fijian rugby players who may now look off-shore for career development even more hastily.

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2069966.html#irb+statement+fru+funding

Very worrying situation. The administrators of rugby in Fiji are slowing killing the game there. It's not acceptable that they have coaches who haven't been payed in a year etc.

Oh no... without fundjng how will they be able to pay for their tickets to New Zealand to try out for the ABs?

Oh dear. Could Fiji end up concentrating on league now? The game is growing there and in Samoa.

Also what does this mean for their 7s team.

The final nail in the coffin.....bet they still beat Wales though.

Metal Tiger wrote:Oh no... without fundjng how will they be able to pay for their tickets to New Zealand to try out for the ABs?

No cheap shots please, this is a serious topic that deserves better than cheap WUMs.

http://www.fijileaks.com/2/post/2014/01/fru-faces-gravest-crisis-in-its-100-year-history-after-international-rugby-board-suspended-the-frus-annual-1-million-development-grant-with-bainimarama-deepening-the-crisis-further-by-rejecting-the-fru-boards-preferred-candidate-for-vacant-ceo-po.html

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:Oh no... without fundjng how will they be able to pay for their tickets to New Zealand to try out for the ABs?

No cheap shots please, this is a serious topic that deserves better than cheap WUMs.

From you? Quality.

New year, new leaf. Indulge me. Rugby has few enough international powers without losing one of our brightest rising stars.

I imagine the FRU are being controlled by the loony military dictatorship

I believe that is the implication in less euphemistic terms

Perhaps the NZRU (and other unions) "dismissal" of the FRU centenary plans was a little more educated than it appeared at the time?

Theres no point charging in there and looking like Dennis Rodman at a Kim Jong-un birthday party.

I had no idea that the IRB fund, or help fund, National Rugby Unions, like the FRU. I think this is not right, I think they should not fund any National Rugby Union, including the FRU. Where do the IRB get their money from anyway?

International197, but do you not think that Fiji has a special case to plead when it comes to Rugby Sevens?

Lots of countries in the past have looked to the IRB to cover expenses, even Wales.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/nov/14/autumn-internationals-walesrugbyunionteam1

international197 wrote:I had no idea that the IRB fund, or help fund, National Rugby Unions, like the FRU. I think this is not right, I think they should not fund any National Rugby Union, including the FRU. Where do the IRB get their money from anyway?

The take a % of any official game, collect merchandising revenue, take donations and of course their real cash cow in the guarantees revenue for "allowing" a lucky union to host the RWC at their expense and milk their own fans.  IRB accounts are a matter of public record and you can download and peruse them...

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/newsmedia/mediazone/02/06/75/10/sdevelopc413061111100.pdf

Fiji rugby and their players have been commoditized for years, players being lured by other countries causing the erosion of their game.

aucklandlaurie wrote:International197, but do you not think that Fiji has a special case to plead when it comes to Rugby Sevens?

No. Fiji isn't different to any other rugby nation, IMO. No National Rugby Union deserves funding by the IRB at the expense of other National Rugby Unions, IMO.

I would agree with you if all Rugby nations within the IRB stable were equal, reality is they arent, and its in the interest of the IRB to look after rugby in all rugby nations, not just the big boys at the top.

Fiji is not the only country getting funding from the IRB.

Depending on the tier you get more.

international197 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:International197, but do you not think that Fiji has a special case to plead when it comes to Rugby Sevens?

No. Fiji isn't different to any other rugby nation, IMO. No National Rugby Union deserves funding by the IRB at the expense of other National Rugby Unions, IMO.

Where do you think the IRB revenues should go then, on junkets and nights/days out for the boys. The idea of raising the money is to support the 2nd and 3rd tier (I would love to, but I don't include Wales in those tiers, see comment above about Wales being funded) nations and promote rugby union across the globe. Very few countries have done more to promote RU than the Fijians.

The fact that the IRB funded a 1st tier nation for a short time suggests that they don't support nations at the expense of other nations, but support the game as a whole.

If the game is to grow, funding for smaller nations is a necessity. The alternative is to keep the game confined to 10 nations or so and let it die everywhere else.

Biltong wrote:Depending on the tier you get more.

Are you saying that top tier National Rugby Unions generally recieve more funding, from the IRB, than lower tiers National Rugby Unions?

I'm trying to open GloriousEmpire's link to the IRB's accounts to try to find this out but, unfortunately, there's a technical error.

I can't find all the figures, but I remember just after the RWC figures were released about what figures each country would get after the RWC, I founf this on wiki.

The IRB have recently[when?] released £18.6 million of funding over three years for tier two nations Canada, the USA, Japan, Romania, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. Argentina will also receive additional support to enable it to retain its tier one status. The money, built up from successful World Cups, was released following a report commissioned by the IRB highlighting the growing disparity between tier one and tier two nations. (see IRB statement). This is in addition to the £10–12 million it normally gives out grants and tournament costs. The emphasis is on three areas infrastructure, high performance units and cross border competitions.

It was announced in April 2006 that tier-3 rugby nations Georgia, Portugal, Tunisia and Russia were identified as the key investment nations over the next three years. The program is designed to increase the competitiveness of international rugby union.

IMO, say the IRB gives £1 annually to nation A, £2 annually to nation B, and £3 annually to nation C, it's not being impartial. It would be much fairer, IMO, if it gave £X annually to every nation, from New Zealand, who are currently ranked 1st in the IRB world rankings, to Finland, currently ranked 101st. It would be even fairer, IMO, if it gave nothing.

IMO, the IRB should not try to manipulate 'the competitiveness of international rugby union' by giving one National Rugby Union more funding than another. For example, IMO, the IRB should not give 'additional support' to Argentina 'to enable it to retain its tier one status' because, I believe, this would be done at the expense of other rugby nations.

Sorry that doesn't make sense.

Money to countries able to make the jump into the 1st tier is the most sensible way to go.

Giving money to countries who are no better than an Old Boys team doesn't make sense.
I saw Finland play once and quite frankly in my youth I would have been good enough to get selected.

international197 wrote:IMO, if the IRB gives £1 annually to nation A, £2 annually to nation B, and £3 annually to nation C, then it's not being impartial. If this is the case, it would be much fairer, IMO, if it gave £X annually to every nation, from New Zealand, who are currently ranked first in the IRB world rankings, to Finland, currently ranked 101st. It would be even fairer, IMO, if it gave no rugby nation any money.

IMO, the IRB should not try to manipulate 'the competitiveness of international rugby union' by giving one National Rugby Union more funding than another. For example, IMO, the IRB should not give 'additional support' to Argentina 'to enable it to retain its tier one status' because, I believe, this would be done at the expense of other rugby nations.

On a side note, if you go back five years to the IRB rankings (19/1/2009) there were only 95 countries ranked by the IRB. and as it happens 95 th place was occupied by Finland.
I think the IRB are on the right track, just not sure about the guys in Finland.

IRB to compensate for Rugby World Cup participation
SPORTS STAFF
Published: 2012/05/18
THE International Rugby Board (IRB) has agreed to give top-tier nations extra funds to help cover the cost of competing at the Rugby World Cup, officials in Australia and New Zealand said yesterday.

New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) CE Steve Tew put the issue on the agenda during last year’s tournament by threatening to pull the All Blacks from the 2015 World Cup if no action was taken. Tew had complained the NZRU lost money every time the quadrennial tournament was staged as the Tri-Nations southern hemisphere series had to be shortened to avoid fixture clashes, reducing TV and gate revenue.

He said the IRB agreed this week to give New Zealand an extra £3m from Rugby World Cup revenue, taking its cut from the 2015 tournament in England to £7,5m. The IRB would also pay up to £10m to the four countries in the southern hemisphere competition to cover losses caused by curtailing the series in 2015.

The Tri-Nations series has been renamed the Rugby Championship this year after Argentina joined New Zealand, SA and Australia in the competition. Tew said he was satisfied the NZRU’s concerns had been heard.

"The increased distribution of RWC revenue, coupled with the ability to claw back some of the lost revenue from Test matches, is a significant help," he said.

Australian Rugby Union (ARU) chief John O’Neill said his organisation would also receive an extra £3m.

The new IRB allocations meant it was "better placed" financially. He said the IRB has also agreed to examine a ban on teams promoting their sponsors at the Rugby World Cup, a move designed to prevent the tournament’s official sponsors being overshadowed by rivals.

"In the past, (team sponsors) have had limited visibility during the Rugby World Cup," he said. "But if there is a move towards the Fifa World Cup model, where the commercial partners of national unions can have association at training, on training kit and on media backdrops, for instance, it will be a … fillip for them."

geoff999rugby wrote:Giving money to countries who are no better than an Old Boys team doesn't make sense.
I saw Finland play once and quite frankly in my youth I would have been good enough to get selected.

I think it makes sense; the money, IMO, would help them improve.

You would have been good enough to get selected for Finland if you were Finnish Qualified?

That what I am saying and honestly I do not make any claims to have been anything other than an average club player