All Blacks to Boycott RWC 2015?

by **LondonTiger** Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:22 am

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Sports/Story/A1Story20110928-301894.html

As he says, it would be the action of last resort - but if commercial arrangements stay the same as the current WC then it is exceedingly unlikely that New Zealand would participate.

While I have sympathies with countries losing money each of his potential solutions effectively means a loss to someone else:

1) Move the WC so a full Tri Nations can be played - note NH countries lose all their AIs all ready. This must mean moving it later, thus heavily impacting even further on the European season. They do not want to affect the Super XV by playing Tri-nations earlier, but do want to ride roughshod over the HC timetable.

2) Pay more to Tier 1 countries. This thus reduces the cash available for improving world wide rugby and is a narrow minded and short term view. The better the level of world wide rugby and it's exposure, the higher the TV and Commercial revenues and thus the money coming back to the Unions.

3) Relax the restrictions placed on the individual sponsors of countries (ie allow shirt sponsorship and other commercial activities for team sponsors rather than official IRB sponsors). This will obviousley reduce the value of the sponsoship package. It is however the best of the 3 solutions.

Any way, what do you think? Is mentioning this during a WC the right time? Should they have raised it earlier - seeing as they knew the arrangements in place for this WC?

As a side note - if the RFU had mentioned this and were mooting the possibility of boycotting a WC in NZ they would have been pilloried from every corner of the rugby globe. Will double standards be applied?

by LordDowlais Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:48 am

Who do New Zealand/NZRFU think they are ? If they decide to boycott the 2015 world cup, then they should be expelled from all world cups. Lets be honest here, they only had this world cup to keep them happy, and if anything this world cup has stunted the growth of rugby union as everbody else has to put up with stupid kick off times, and then when we do watch the games on tele you see half empty stadiums as they only care about their own team. Look at the last world cup in France, record attendances, record t.v audiences, can we say the same about this world cup ? The origonal poster was right, if it were England syaing this, it would be arrogance and there would be bloody murder about it. Everybody has got four years until the next world cup to come up with a plan of how to navigate themselves and for toy's to be thrown out of the pram before the prior worl cup as even finished, well let them go as far as I am concerened. Just because they are the best team in the world, it does not mean they can dictate when world cup's are played. steam

by bedfordwelsh Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:30 am

I really hope it doesn't come to this BUT if it does then the IRB must stand firm and not cow down to the NZRFU.

Lets see how big they are when push comes to shove and they miss out on the biggest rugby event going on.

by **Biltong** Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:34 am

He said this meant that competing at the 2011 World Cup was costing the NZRU more than NZ$13 million (S$13 million).

did they not know about this impact before hand?

It is a bit late now to cry wolf.

by BATH_BTGOG Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:41 am

Tough, Lets face it NZ rarely make it past the QF anyway Whistle

Would we miss them?

by **rodders** Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:58 am

As much as I love the AB's and the RWC would be a far poorer competition without them, the NZRFU can't be allowed to hold the rest of us to ransom and dictate the terms in which they are willing to participate the the RWC.

If there is a concensus from the other Unions then fair enough otherwise I think the NZFRU's bluff has to be called here. If they want to pull out then let them.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:01 am

Has anyone actually read what he says?

They arent seriously therartneing to ppull out and are consulting and trying to work with the IRB to ensure the competition stays financialy viable./
They have been trying to get the changes for the last 8 years. Its not just the NZRFU thats losing money, the combined loses are up to £40 million.

This also pours scornm on the idea that the rich nations are milking the golden cow that is the world cup, somehow denying the minnows access to a massive sluch fund that would otherwise transform these poor nations into major rugby forces with cyborgs or something.

Its not unreasoanble to suggest that competing in the world cup shouldnt bankrupt your unipe

by Gatts Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:02 am

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Tough, Lets face it NZ rarely make it past the QF anyway

Would we miss them?

Nicely done. This is a cunning plan to keep the Webb Ellis....they think that if they win it this time and then veto RWC they can hang onto it forever....those years in the rugby world cup wilderness have really taken their toll.

by Cari Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:03 am

If they win this world cup, how can they realistically boycott the next one? Surely the winners would have to defend their title and could be made to take part?

by XR Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:03 am

Deary me, if it's not one things it's the other.

If they boycott then they should be banned from the international arena for a suitable amount of time.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:05 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Has anyone actually read what he says?

by Cari Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:09 am

I have PSW - they're saying that it would be a very last resort if an alternative agreement couldn't be found, but still my query stands - could they honestly boycott it if they won this year, even if they really wanted to?

by chewed_mintie Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:09 am

LordDowlais wrote:Who do New Zealand/NZRFU think they are ? If they decide to boycott the 2015 world cup, then they should be expelled from all world cups. Lets be honest here, they only had this world cup to keep them happy, and if anything this world cup has stunted the growth of rugby union as everbody else has to put up with stupid kick off times, and then when we do watch the games on tele you see half empty stadiums as they only care about their own team.

Aaaawwww, boo hoo! Are you unhappy that you have to wake up in the morning to see a game of Rugby? Bet you weren’t complaining in 2003 were you? I haven’t seen too many half empty stadiums, in fact from the game I have seen the crowds have been what the organisers promised, full of the local people coming out and adopting a team for the week mixed with travelling supporters – everyone I see is having a great time. You only see the games, you’re not there so you don’t see what happens in the week for these teams.

Georgia travel up from Wellington through the Wairarapa (a very large area with a very small population) and they stop in Featherstone where literally the whole town is standing in the main road (that’d be State Highway 2) waiting for them to turn up so that kids and adults alike can meet the team.

Teams in Nelson being welcomed by 1000-strong hakas from local schools.

The whole of Palmerston North adopting Romania for today’s game (looked pretty full to me).

Scotland being completely home in Southland.

Whangarei has done an awesome job in the hospitality stakes

This WC is completely inclusive. It doesn’t revolve around the games, it revolves around every day that the WC is in NZ. Please, if you can come up with any other place where the WC would be this inclusive then go right ahead. What utter nonsense about NZer’s only supporting the AB’s.

Anyway, from one idiotic point to another.

NZ are losing money – fact. We are the games biggest product, biggest drawcard and I don’t mean it in an arrogant way. Why shouldn’t NZ expect a bit more. It’s like what a reporter on Stuff said today “a WC without NZ would be like a milkshake without milk”. May seem arrogant but whatever way you look at it, he’s right.

Steve Tew has come out and said he is doing this not only on NZ’s behalf, but the other Tier One nations who lose similar amounts through the WC. It may not be a popular way to do things, but certainly something needs to be done to ensure NZ gets the returns it deserves for having the biggest product in the game.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:18 am

Cari wrote:I have PSW - they're saying that it would be a very last resort if an alternative agreement couldn't be found, but still my query stands - could they honestly boycott it if they won this year, even if they really wanted to?

Where does he say boycott?
They say they may have to pull out because they literaly wouldnt be able to afford to go. Theres a huge difference.

by chewed_mintie Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:19 am

And before everyone starts on about the usual uninformed drivel about the loss on this WC – let’s be clear the IRB have got their pot of gold out of this. The loss lies with the NZ govt.

by Islingtonv2 Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:19 am

Its a political move by the NZRFU given the timing of the announcement to put pressure on one or two major unions to relent on the commercial issues. I'd be gob smacked if NZ pulled out of 2015 because as much as anything else it would be commercial suicide on their part.

Whats interesting to me out of the whole thing though is how relient they are on an expanded and dull tri-nations in which the teams play each other far to often and the sense of occasion has been completely lost. It sounds to me like there financial model is on very shaky grounds and paying the big stars big bucks is unsustainable.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:23 am

chewed_mintie wrote:And before everyone starts on about the usual uninformed drivel about the loss on this WC – let’s be clear the IRB have got their pot of gold out of this. The loss lies with the NZ govt.

If the IRB has then its going to welfare payments to support minnow unions that have no commercial drive or interest from supporters, or the ability to field a team worth being at the world cup. That and Samoans pockets (allegedly)

by Cari Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:25 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Cari wrote:I have PSW - they're saying that it would be a very last resort if an alternative agreement couldn't be found, but still my query stands - could they honestly boycott it if they won this year, even if they really wanted to?

Where does he say boycott?
They say they may have to pull out because they literaly wouldnt be able to afford to go. Theres a huge difference.

fair enough, but if they win it this year, they would be even less likely to pull out for that reason. They'd get the money from somewhere because they'd be world champions, and I can't see the world champions struggling to finance their attendance.

by LordDowlais Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:27 am

chewed_mintie wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:Who do New Zealand/NZRFU think they are ? If they decide to boycott the 2015 world cup, then they should be expelled from all world cups. Lets be honest here, they only had this world cup to keep them happy, and if anything this world cup has stunted the growth of rugby union as everbody else has to put up with stupid kick off times, and then when we do watch the games on tele you see half empty stadiums as they only care about their own team.

Aaaawwww, boo hoo! Are you unhappy that you have to wake up in the morning to see a game of Rugby? Bet you weren’t complaining in 2003 were you? I haven’t seen too many half empty stadiums, in fact from the game I have seen the crowds have been what the organisers promised, full of the local people coming out and adopting a team for the week mixed with travelling supporters – everyone I see is having a great time. You only see the games, you’re not there so you don’t see what happens in the week for these teams.

Georgia travel up from Wellington through the Wairarapa (a very large area with a very small population) and they stop in Featherstone where literally the whole town is standing in the main road (that’d be State Highway 2) waiting for them to turn up so that kids and adults alike can meet the team.

Teams in Nelson being welcomed by 1000-strong hakas from local schools.

The whole of Palmerston North adopting Romania for today’s game (looked pretty full to me).

Scotland being completely home in Southland.

Whangarei has done an awesome job in the hospitality stakes

This WC is completely inclusive. It doesn’t revolve around the games, it revolves around every day that the WC is in NZ. Please, if you can come up with any other place where the WC would be this inclusive then go right ahead. What utter nonsense about NZer’s only supporting the AB’s.

Anyway, from one idiotic point to another.

NZ are losing money – fact. We are the games biggest product, biggest drawcard and I don’t mean it in an arrogant way. Why shouldn’t NZ expect a bit more. It’s like what a reporter on Stuff said today “a WC without NZ would be like a milkshake without milk”. May seem arrogant but whatever way you look at it, he’s right.

Steve Tew has come out and said he is doing this not only on NZ’s behalf, but the other Tier One nations who lose similar amounts through the WC. It may not be a popular way to do things, but certainly something needs to be done to ensure NZ gets the returns it deserves for having the biggest product in the game.

New Zealand might be the best, but I very much doubt they are the biggest product. I am sure that England with it's massive population have a "bigger" product, likewise South Africa, also do you know who has the best selling rugby jersey in the world ? I will answer it, Wales. Wales have the biggest selling jersey, because of the colour and red is a very popular top to have. So does that make us a big product ? I think the biggest countries, England, France, South Africa even Australia have a bigger impact on the "product", and in time's to come you will have the likes of Russia, Japan, Canada with even bigger populations thrown into this "product" area as you call it. So you can say all you like, as much as I respect the All Blacks for their status in world rugby, they cannot call the shots for everyone. Also I have been watching the world cup and I have not mentioned how welcoming the public are to the teams and fans, facts are facts, you are struggling to fill even the small stadiums, and the viewing times, although not New Zealands fault, are alienating about 85% of the veiwing population, thus stunting the growth of our game. It is not a problem for me as I love rugby and will get up at anytime to watch it, but what about people who have not got a passion like mine and will miss this world cup as a result, loosing a potential massive fan base around the world.

by fa0019 Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:30 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler

So he wants to allow his team to highlight their sponsors. Allow individual teams to showcase their rival sponsor and the value of the official sponsorship mony will drop to an insignificant number. The RWC is not in the same league financially as the FIFA WC. The RWC probably has to go out & find sponsors.... in football they gets sponsors banging on their door.

He wants to play a larger 3N.... fine by me. Its never been the IRB saying, no you can't have a larger tournament surely, rather the unions realising that 2 extra matches would leave their players in tatters... remember SA's NH tour in 09 after playing 9 massive tests in June-Aug.... yep they lost 5 out of 6.
The 3N in RWC years are a farce anyhow.... teams send 2nd teams away from home so its never a true tournament anyhow.

In reality NZ are financially screwed not because of the IRB rules but because they decided to host a RWC which they couldn't afford. They went in with their eyes open so can't complain about other factors.

by chewed_mintie Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:31 am

Islington – they are not bringing this onto other unions; the beef is with the IRB. The top unions get very little in compensation for being at the WC which is very little compared to the loss of revenue from annual fixtures.

The NH unions will be losing money out of the WC too. Let’s take Scotland for example. No money in the game, poor crowds most of the year, not a lot of TV money. I’d say 3-4 fixtures in the Autumn with close to capacity crowds puts a lot of £ into the coffers in Edinburgh. How do they cope without that money this year? Their sponsors are nowhere to be seen owing to the IRB’s blanket policy. Can Scotland afford to be at the next WC – well considering it will be in the UK probably yes, but for how much longer with little resources can they keep smiling to the IRB as they are fleeced every four years?

Take Tew’s point about FIFA, at the last WC, team sponsors could be shown up to two days at hotels and functions before each game and then FIFA’s blanket sponsorship would take over – however, at least team sponsors were given access. It doesn’t even happen with the IRB.

Some of you may view this as a one man crusade about NZ taking on the world and most of you would be happy to see NZ fall on it’s face as a result. Thing is, Steve Tew (for all his faults) could be doing your unions a favour here.

And let’s be realistic, the IRB won’t ban NZ from competitive games. That’d be right out of ‘How to Lose Emerging Markets in One Stupid Move 101’ and contrary to everything the IRB is trying to do at the moment

by chewed_mintie Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:39 am

Lord Dowlais

I’ve lived in the UK for a long time now. I see All Black jerseys in the oddest places you could imagine. I spend a lot of time in France every year and I’ll tell you what, the kids aren’t wearing Red Roses or Welsh Dragons or even French Cockerills on their chests, they are wearing All Blacks jerseys. It may be in the South West, but still, the AB’s have an impact. The AB brand stretches far further than any other in Rugby. It would be interesting to see jersey sales and I wouldn’t deny you on that point, however another to look at things is would USA Rugby offer Wales/England/Scotland/Ireland/France over £1.5m to play a game in the USA? Probably not, wouldn’t draw the crowd or get a look in on the TV.

I think we have to give a little credit to the fact that the All Blacks as a brand have increased the profile of the game around the world.

by fa0019 Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:48 am

chewed_mintie

So when do you want to host the RWC then??

You want to keep the 6N, the 3N (full 6 match length), the AIs, the HC, SR and now we're bringing back SH summer tours for the 6N teams.

Well that leaves no time what so ever.

The AI are sacrificed because they are not tournaments... only lucrative friendlies.

If you want to play all those matches players will be in bits come the RWC.

Lets take a SH side for example

19 SR matches
6 3N matches
3 AI matches
7 RWC matches
3 NH summer tour matches

thats 38 matches... just remember SA NH tour in 09 when they played a lions tour next to the 3N... they lot 5 out of 6 and were in bits by the end.. players like Burger, Smith & Du Preez were lost for near a year after that.

by Islingtonv2 Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:52 am

chewed_mintie wrote:Islington – they are not bringing this onto other unions; the beef is with the IRB. The top unions get very little in compensation for being at the WC which is very little compared to the loss of revenue from annual fixtures.

And what do you think the IRB is made up of? Yep the individual national unions themselves of which the tradional tier 1 nations are by far the most powerful. A beef with the IRB is by definition a beef with at least one other union (i've no idea whom) who has taken a different commercial view from NZ in the recent past.

by chewed_mintie Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:01 pm

I guess the crux is that the current system is imbedded in the Old School history of annual tours and that must be done away with. If that is the case then a working group needs to start about planning for a global season to put this right. Won’t happen though because England and France back the club system.

I am aware that we can’t keep having full 3N in WC year and obviously doing away with the Autumn internationals too means that the WC has its place. However it comes at a cost to those unions who host and those who receive a fee for playing. In the end, if the compensation from the WC is not enough to cover the loss of revenue, then why not just play some exhibition matches where those unions who lose out can make a bit of money.

Why is Wales playing Australia in Dec? Money. Not for honour, but because those teams need to recover a loss of revenue.

by disneychilly Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:01 pm

chewed_mintie wrote:Lord Dowlais

I’ve lived in the UK for a long time now. I see All Black jerseys in the oddest places you could imagine. I spend a lot of time in France every year and I’ll tell you what, the kids aren’t wearing Red Roses or Welsh Dragons or even French Cockerills on their chests, they are wearing All Blacks jerseys. It may be in the South West, but still, the AB’s have an impact. The AB brand stretches far further than any other in Rugby. It would be interesting to see jersey sales and I wouldn’t deny you on that point, however another to look at things is would USA Rugby offer Wales/England/Scotland/Ireland/France over £1.5m to play a game in the USA? Probably not, wouldn’t draw the crowd or get a look in on the TV.

I think we have to give a little credit to the fact that the All Blacks as a brand have increased the profile of the game around the world.

Totally agree. The All Blacks are the most well-known team in rugby by a mile. DESPITE all the money being in the north. How could you not know this?

by **Biltong** Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:10 pm

The all blacks Brand is the best known brand in rugby union. That is a fact.

The problem the way I see it, is that rugby unions are held by the short and curly by the media moguls, who in their turn has become accustomed to how weak willed and flexible the rugby unions have become.

They therefor don't only buy a product, they actually demand how the product should be structured and presented and only ten do they decide how much they will pay for it.

This is not an isolated event, it happens every time contracts are renewed.

The problem stems from the monopolies these media moguls have, there isn't enough competition in the market place to play these broadcasting giants up against one another.

New zealand because of their small population is on a hiding to nothing becuase their local market is not big enough to sustain a professional support unless the government steps in.

Unfotunately it is unlikely that this situation will ever change unless the rugby unions become more creative in their thinking of how to generate income.

In the meantimme it is the players that suffer, because of fatigue over exposure of their bodies and not enough recovery time.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:12 pm

Islingtonv2 wrote:
chewed_mintie wrote:Islington – they are not bringing this onto other unions; the beef is with the IRB. The top unions get very little in compensation for being at the WC which is very little compared to the loss of revenue from annual fixtures.

And what do you think the IRB is made up of? Yep the individual national unions themselves of which the tradional tier 1 nations are by far the most powerful. A beef with the IRB is by definition a beef with at least one other union (i've no idea whom) who has taken a different commercial view from NZ in the recent past.

But the big Unions are keeping many smaller ones on welfare payments, depsite being virtualy bankrupt themselves. There has to be a balance between teh commercial viability of the the big and the small or there will be no rugby at all.

As for the AI's...they are as much a money spinner for the SH nations as they are the host nations. Both suffer when they dont happen. Remeber Argentina asjked the RFU to host one of their "home" fixtures so they could get more income from it. The Pisland nations are gifted a big chunk of the income from the games they play even though the RFU could earn more and put more bums on seats by inisting on playing 4 games against tri nations sides every year.

Its not only New Zealand that are in this position, most of the major Unions are struggling to balance the books.
Its a balance, global spread and inclussion of all versus mantaining the viability of the existing places where the game is popular and has some chance of generating enough moneyty to fund its contuinued existance.

Do we risk putting NZRFU out of business just so we can have a cup for countries that dont care about rugby? If its a staright choice Id say no. What needs to happen is for a solution to be found that balances both interests, it appears thats what they are trying to find.

by thebandwagonsociety Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:15 pm

Do they make a loss after taking into account their merchandise sales? The increased numbers of tourists into the country? The shop window that NZ can put itself across to millions of potential visitors? The primary place to recoup these 'losses' is in the ticket prices and primary sponsorship revenue. Also, the RWC wasn't forced on NZ to host and I'd doubt that the NZRU aren't giving themselves nice little bonuses this year for all their good work (adding to these costs).

I would have major doubts that NZ as a country will make a loss out of these 2 months.

by mystiroakey Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:19 pm

ermm- its an honour to have a wolrd cup at home- if you run a loss on it then its your own fault, if you release how hard it is to break even in the first place You bring up the problems before you accept the challenge of holding the world cup.No point having a hissy fit after Lol as if NZ would boycott the next world cup if they win anyway- If they dont win its no great loss to the world of rugby any way- They are throwing toys out of prams there.

If there is a point to be made here then it has to be taken up before you accept to host the world cup, not during or after!

by TycroesOsprey Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:21 pm

1. NZ were done a favour by the rest of the rugby world in getting this world cup as its the last possible time they would be able to host it given the globalisation of the sport. Tew shold maybe think about that.

2. NZ are not losing money fact! The NZ economy will be boosted by 1.2 billion dollars by this world cup. If your union havent got a slice of that action then again Tew needs to look at his own union and govt not the IRB. They lost 12 mil and gained a thousand times that much in return.

3. The world cup dealt with the boks being absent for the first two so it would cope with losing the All blacks. Or are you saying 1987 was a devalued world cup mintie and teh only all black success at world cups was thus devalued?

The only people who would lose out by the blacks not showing up for the world cup would be NZ.

by Islingtonv2 Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:27 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Islingtonv2 wrote:
chewed_mintie wrote:Islington – they are not bringing this onto other unions; the beef is with the IRB. The top unions get very little in compensation for being at the WC which is very little compared to the loss of revenue from annual fixtures.

And what do you think the IRB is made up of? Yep the individual national unions themselves of which the tradional tier 1 nations are by far the most powerful. A beef with the IRB is by definition a beef with at least one other union (i've no idea whom) who has taken a different commercial view from NZ in the recent past.

But the big Unions are keeping many smaller ones on welfare payments, depsite being virtualy bankrupt themselves. There has to be a balance between teh commercial viability of the the big and the small or there will be no rugby at all.

As for the AI's...they are as much a money spinner for the SH nations as they are the host nations. Both suffer when they dont happen. Remeber Argentina asjked the RFU to host one of their "home" fixtures so they could get more income from it. The Pisland nations are gifted a big chunk of the income from the games they play even though the RFU could earn more and put more bums on seats by inisting on playing 4 games against tri nations sides every year.

Its not only New Zealand that are in this position, most of the major Unions are struggling to balance the books.
Its a balance, global spread and inclussion of all versus mantaining the viability of the existing places where the game is popular and has some chance of generating enough moneyty to fund its contuinued existance.

Do we risk putting NZRFU out of business just so we can have a cup for countries that dont care about rugby? If its a staright choice Id say no. What needs to happen is for a solution to be found that balances both interests, it appears thats what they are trying to find.

Its very interesting that this discussion is being had in parallel with the many we've had on this forum about how the RWC should be structured in future. Some like myself advocating having fewer teams in future - it would certainly cut running costs and reduce the pool of unions that have to share in the revenue, however fewer games does also equal less TV and ticketing revenue itself. There is no easy answer.

by chewed_mintie Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:31 pm

Mystiroakey – you’re confusing the issue on losses here. The loss incurred by hosting the event is expected to be about $39m (£20m) and most of this will be met by the NZ govt. The loss deals with income from ticket sales against direct RWC costs. This loss could be smaller or bigger depending on how ticket sales fare over the next 4 weeks. Chances are there will still be a loss, but smaller than expected which implies there will have been more than 1.35m tickets sold which is a great achievement.

However, there are direct spending benefits as a result of the influx of tourists to the country (some $700m in tourist spend expected) so there is clear economic benefit in hosting the WC.

The other loss that I am talking about occurs in a WC year when traditional (or money making) tours give way to make space for the WC.

In the spring/summer – NH teams haven’t bothered sending teams down here to tour. No games, no revenue. When they have in the past – bar 2003 (well done England) – the teams have been sub-par and crowds are affected. Poor crowds = less money.

In the Autumn – SH cannot tour as the WC is on. Both sides make money out of these as they play in bigger stadiums and there is more money in the NH game. NZ could stand to make about £3-4 for 5 games on a NH tour. In a WC year, kiss bye-bye to that money.

The loss on the WC has nothing to do with the loss incurred by the Tier One nations in WC year (not just NZ!)

by chewed_mintie Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:33 pm

TycroesOsprey wrote:3. The world cup dealt with the boks being absent for the first two so it would cope with losing the All blacks. Or are you saying 1987 was a devalued world cup mintie and teh only all black success at world cups was thus devalued?

I'll only say it was devalued if you admit to supporting a rascist regime hey? There were clear reasons for SA's exile.

by TycroesOsprey Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:35 pm

chewed_mintie wrote:

In the spring/summer – NH teams haven’t bothered sending teams down here to tour. No games, no revenue. When they have in the past – bar 2003 (well done England) – the teams have been sub-par and crowds are affected. Poor crowds = less money.

Wales sent their best team down to NZ last year, two matches both sell out attendences

by chewed_mintie Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:39 pm

Yes, but that was not a WC year was it? In 07 France came down with essentially a C team and were given a shellacking (made up for it though)

I'm talking about reduced income in WC years. It affects all Tier 1 teams, not just NZ

by TycroesOsprey Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:41 pm

totally agree their were clear reasons for the boks absence, but I dont feel that absence devalued the 87 or 91 tournaments. so losing the blacks would not be an issue for me although dissapointing.

The question Tew should be answering is this, given every host union has made a profit on a world cup since 95(Wales, Oz, France) why havent the all blacks managed to?

by TycroesOsprey Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:53 pm

Yes I agree tier 1 nations lose money from match revenue in a world cup year. Wales lose the revenue from 3 autumn internationals.

However performing on the global stage rather than in an autumn friendly series increases golbal exposure. The better the team does in that event the better for the bean counters. Increased global exposure increases marketing and sponserhip income streams noticably.

So the other tier 1 nations accept the loss in direct income from ticket sales for the larger long term benefit performing in a world cup generates. Its not difficult you speculate to accumulate. Of course if your team underperforms in a world cup that means you take a massive hit from those sponsers, wales lost considerably when we went out in 07 but gained massively after our performances in 03.

Personally I think Tew is playing very loose and fast with the facts in order to whip up a storm, what might suprise him and the rest of NZ is the rugby world will shrug it off and move on.

by LordDowlais Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:57 pm

disneychilly wrote:
chewed_mintie wrote:Lord Dowlais

I’ve lived in the UK for a long time now. I see All Black jerseys in the oddest places you could imagine. I spend a lot of time in France every year and I’ll tell you what, the kids aren’t wearing Red Roses or Welsh Dragons or even French Cockerills on their chests, they are wearing All Blacks jerseys. It may be in the South West, but still, the AB’s have an impact. The AB brand stretches far further than any other in Rugby. It would be interesting to see jersey sales and I wouldn’t deny you on that point, however another to look at things is would USA Rugby offer Wales/England/Scotland/Ireland/France over £1.5m to play a game in the USA? Probably not, wouldn’t draw the crowd or get a look in on the TV.

I think we have to give a little credit to the fact that the All Blacks as a brand have increased the profile of the game around the world.

Totally agree. The All Blacks are the most well-known team in rugby by a mile. DESPITE all the money being in the north. How could you not know this?

Chewedmintie, If you take a look at certian facts and figures, you would have known that the WRU sighned the biggest ever shirt deal with Under Armour to manufacture the Welsh kit. Now as far as I am aware Under Armour are an American company. So why would an American company choose the Welsh strip if the All Black's are the most popular over there ? Anyway this is going off subject and I think you are getting what I said totally wrong. For instance, you are saying that the All Blacks "product" is bigger than averybody else. Well I for one have to disagree. Their "product" is better, there is no doubt about that, but bigger ? If you take car manufacturing for an example, an Austin Martin is massively better than a Ford Fiesta, but which as the bigger "product". Unfortunately as only a certain few can afford the Astin Martin then the Fiesta is the bigger product as it is more accseable to the everyday person. Likewise with rugby, there are over 70 million people in the U.k and Ireland, yet there is only about 6 million between New Zealand and all the other Islands around you. So add France to the eqausion and you automatically get a bigger product in Europe, whilst not necassarly better, it is bigger.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:01 pm

Tycroe, you think teh RWC sponsors would be happy to fork out if they werent there?
Its a slipperly slope. If they decide they simply cant afford it other may have to pull out too.

Anyway if they did pull out unilaterly then tehy still wouldnt have anyone to play 3N/Ai's against so theyd stand to lose even more.....

Its not just a case of " well if you dont want to play we'll do without you" its a case of having a world cup or not. A solution will be found for 2015, it may not suit everyone long term though and the future of the competition may be bought into doubt.

by chewed_mintie Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:06 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12685894

Wales deal worth £10m a season

AB’s deal with Adidas was unrevealed but estimates at $24.5m (£12.25m) per year for 5 years. Which would be right, considering in 1999 it was a $100m/10 yr deal. It will get bigger if NZ win the WC this time.

Under Armour pay that much to generate sales in the UK. Adidas pay that much to keep other sponsors off the jersey and so they can sell that product in markets outside of the UK (Asia/US).

by TycroesOsprey Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:09 pm

Oh Im sure that there will be a resolution to this for 2015, However thats what this is, Tew is opening the shots in a discussion that will happen in the IRB, However what he is saying actually does not add up, The other unions know that and will simply point to the figures generated by the world cup.

As for the RWC sponsers yep they would still be there, it would still be a global event in the UK which will generate massive exposure for their brands regardless of whether the all blacks are there or not.

Football world cups dont suffer if England fail to qualify or any other of the top nations. Would it suffer if Brazil arguably the biggest brand in football failed to qualify? nope. Rugby is getting bigger and bigger in the next couple of world cups it will truly go global.

by chewed_mintie Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:14 pm

Tycroes – would the US tv execs be interested in any teams outside of the Eagles if NZ wasn’t there? Probably not. What team do the Japanese go crazy for? Clue: it ain’t a NH team.

TV interest in areas OUTSIDE of the main Rugby zones would have less interest in a WC which NZ did not attend. You need to crack the US TV market to have a chance and you won’t get that without NZ. I think you underestimate the growing influence of TV companies outside of Europe. This is where the IRB want to move towards.

by Great White Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:21 pm

chewed_mintie wrote:
TycroesOsprey wrote:3. The world cup dealt with the boks being absent for the first two so it would cope with losing the All blacks. Or are you saying 1987 was a devalued world cup mintie and teh only all black success at world cups was thus devalued?

I'll only say it was devalued if you admit to supporting a rascist regime hey? There were clear reasons for SA's exile.

by TycroesOsprey Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:23 pm

Personally I think you overestimate the value of NZ to brand Rugby considerably.

Russia is the fastest growing rugby market in the world at the moment. hmmmm european and its the French and English they aspire to play like not the blacks. Eastern Europe is where the IRB have deliberatly tried to position themselvs with investments in grass roots rugby.

The US market depends entirely upon the eagles and Rugby will never compete with gridiron, or ice hockey in the states. hell it cant even compete with college football in the states it is not an area that the IRB are positioned to crack in the next decade they havent even tried to position themselves in that market. The average american has no idea this world cup is happening, doesnt know who the all blacks are and has no interest in teh sport.

The aisian market whilst important cannot compete with the popularity of soccer and Rugby as a sport to be played is non existant outside Japan.

by TheGreyGhost Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:25 pm

A few like-minded posters have been saying for some time that the RWC is not only a massive money loser for participant unions, but it's also failing to achieve any of it's stated objectives and also devaluing existing competitions.

Frankly I think the rugby world cup concept should be ditched altogether if it can't be moulded into a sensible event.

Top marks to the ABs for using their considerable clout to bring it to the attention of the IRB.

by **Biltong** Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:28 pm

Thegreyghost, welcome back my friend, I thought we lost you forever.
Hug

by **rodders** Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:29 pm

biltongbek wrote:Thegreyghost, welcome back my friend, I thought we lost you forever.

+ 1

by Great White Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:32 pm

A Kiwi advocating the scrapping of a competition they havent quite been able to win during the professional era. Shock. Horror.

by TycroesOsprey Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:41 pm

Of course the world cup has devalued other competitions, its the World cup not a 6 nations or a tri nations, Its the World Cup! It is more important by the very fact its the World Cup.

As for host unions losing money, nope not for Wales, Oz or France. Hell the WRU, not renowned for their management excellence, built a new stadium, saddled themselves with massive capital debt and still made a profit. If NZ really havent made a profit (and as I have said I think Tew is being diengenuous) then maybe NZRU should look at themselves and their management.

by Sponsored content