The Moana Pasifika Franchise

[Dan54]

I'm pretty sure the NZRU nominated the AB XV as their "next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of a Union" back in 2022, unless I'm mistaken.

I think you might of got that wrong mate, as per Wilson's pot above.
And asked google for confirmation, as we thought. I not sure if we have a capture team anymore, apart from ABs of course.

Players in the All Blacks XV can still be eligible to play for other nations, as the All Blacks XV is not considered a "capture" side by New Zealand Rugby (NZR). This means players who represent the All Blacks XV are not automatically tied to New Zealand and can still switch allegiance to a different country if they meet the eligibility criteria of that nation.

 

[rugbyAU]

SMH reporting that the NZRU have real concerns over Moana’s future

 

[Adam84]

They're required to be based in NZ under license to the NZRU but aren't allowed to sell the broadcast rights in NZ, that all goes to NZRU..
These 'grants' from NZRU are to compensate because MP (Moana Pasifika) have no broadcast revenue income like Drua, Oz and NZ teams.

 

[Adam84]

Lets see Aus Govt roll in and bank roll them like PNG NRL team as part of the Pacific geopolitical posturing, MP (Moana Pasifika) can be based in Western Sydney and funded to actually play games on the islands. Can't be any worse then the current crowds and support surely.

 

[Wilson]

Lets see Aus Govt roll in and bank roll them like PNG NRL team as part of the Pacific geopolitical posturing, MP (Moana Pasifika) (Moana Pasifika) can be based in Western Sydney and funded to actually play games on the islands. Can't be any worse then the current crowds and support surely.

I don't think they're a chance of (significant) Pacific Aid funding unless they're based on island in Samoa or Tonga. Nothing else really satisfies the goals of that program.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Moana's owners are a Pasifika health service & it's being alleged they used ~$770k of Ministry of Health money to keep Moana afloat. An enquiry has been launched & as I posted a couple of pages back I expect it to end badly, Pasifika- & Maori-focussed health services don't fit the current government's agenda despite plenty of evidence they generally produce better outcomes at the same or lesser per capita cost than the mainstream.

 

[Adam84]

I don't think they're a chance of (significant) Pacific Aid funding unless they're based on island in Samoa or Tonga. Nothing else really satisfies the goals of that program.

I disagree, i think they're a strong chance, the Chinese government is now knocking on the door of Tonga and Samoan rugby and pouring money in, the needle has shifted.

I see any funding also including more games and presence in both countries, though, not necessarily based there.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

There's a reason Samoa are playing Scotland at Eden Park rather than Apia.

 

[Wilson]

I disagree, i think they're a strong chance, the Chinese government is now knocking on the door of Tonga and Samoan rugby and pouring money in, the needle has shifted.

I see any funding also including more games in both countries, though, not necessarily based there.

I don't think funding is at all out of the question, but it has to be direct to Tonga/Samoa rather than indirect via Auckland/Sydney and playing to the diaspora. Maybe they don't need to be based on island, but it would have to be significantly more than the one(ish) they play a season right now, and at some point the logistics of being based in Aus/NZ but playing multiple home games on island become too difficult. The nearest I could see working is a ~5 year program to transition them from Auckland to one of the islands, but I don't think it would be particularly efficient to do that via a move to Sydney.

 

[Adam84]

I don't think funding is at all out of the question, but it has to be direct to Tonga/Samoa rather than indirect via Auckland/Sydney and playing to the diaspora. Maybe they don't need to be based on island, but it would have to be significantly more than the one(ish) they play a season right now, and at some point the logistics of being based in Aus/NZ but playing multiple home games on island become too difficult. The nearest I could see working is a ~5 year program to transition them from Auckland to one of the islands, but I don't think it would be particularly efficient to do that via a move to Sydney.

Yes, my initial comment said playing more games than they are now.

Funding doesn't need to be direct to those countries either to achieve a positive geo-political benefit, many of the current Pacific Sports programs aren't directly funding, it's about providing opportunties for those teams through other Australasia-based programs. Even the $600million for the PNG NRL teams includes a significant allocation for programs linked to pacific rugby league.

Tonga, Fiji and Samoa Rugby are reportedly working on a pitch to be presented to the Aus Govt for $150million in funding to counter China influence in the region, i'd say all bets are off and there's some significant funding opportunites available in the region, especially if tied to security pacts and other MOU's. They could easily push for me if the right agreements are on the table IMO, and it would still be considered cheap by the Aus Govt.

Apia Park, Teufaiva Sport Stadium and Suva Stadium are ripe for some Belt and Road Initiative funding...

 

[Wilson]

I think we're more in agreement than not here, it's just around the size of the funding available without a move - as I understand there has already been some Pacific Aus sports funding go to Moana, particularly for the games they have played against the Reds on island. But to get the sort of funding the team would need for sustainability (likely significantly more than what the Drua get) they'd need a more permanent move to the islands. Anything less and I think they're likely just looking at having costs covered for those games on island and specific development programs in Tonga and Samoa that might flow through, but not general funding that wouldn't be spent on island as much. I do think there's plenty still available for Tonga and Samoa, particularly around facility upgrades that would help Moana in the long run, but it probably needs to leverage the national team programs at the moment to really get traction.

There might be separate funding programs they could tap into in Western Sydney that would work in combination though, but I think that move would have to be justified on economic grounds first, particularly given the extra costs that would potentially be incurred to maintain the playing squad.

 

[Adam84]

The Western Sydney comment was a flippant throwaway, but I absolutely do think there is an opportunity for MP (Moana Pasifika) to seek Aus Govt funding under the DFAT/Pacifc Sports programs even if the team isn't based in Samoa or Tonga, especially with China making moves and funding rugby programs and infrastructure in Samoa and Tonga, it's putting heat on Australia to come to the table. Size of the funding potential, even compared to 5 years ago has shifted immensely.

I'll also add a lot of this funding for Pacific programs isn't routed directly to the islands, it's about engaging the islands in Australian programs as well, bringing their teams, staff and key stakeholders to Australia to achieve that soft-diplomacy benefit. Would DFAT/Aus Govt be willing for the perceived benefit of this to go to NZ if MP (Moana Pasifika) remain based in Auckland? Potentially, but the messaging would be better received if it were clear that it was an Australian program.

Sustainability of these programs... isn't a matter of financial clout but diplomatic returns, and how long this geopolitical posturing goes on.

 

[Tomthumb]

Moana's owners are a Pasifika health service & it's being alleged they used ~$770k of Ministry of Health money to keep Moana afloat. An enquiry has been launched & as I posted a couple of pages back I expect it to end badly, Pasifika- & Maori-focussed health services don't fit the current government's agenda despite plenty of evidence they generally produce better outcomes at the same or lesser per capita cost than the mainstream.

I'd say the problem is more using taxpayer money to fund a private enterprise rather than the politics of it

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

There's no actual evidence to suggest that this ever happened, so far it seems very "they get public funds & own a sports team therefore they're using public funds to support the sports team", politically-motivated 1+1=3 stuff.

 

[Tomthumb]

There's no actual evidence to suggest that this ever happened, so far it seems very "they get public funds & own a sports team therefore they're using public funds to support the sports team", politically-motivated 1+1=3 stuff.

That's the point of the independent review, to see if there is any evidence or not. Checks and balances are (well should be) standard when public money is involved. Unless there is a political party that is in favor of misuse of public funds, seems a pretty bipartisan thing