All Blacks to Boycott RWC 2015?

by **LondonTiger** Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:22 am

First topic message reminder :

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 TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:01 pm

or maybe japan gets a couple of Super xv franchises and do away with perth and melbourne so that Australian players are concentrated again. That would be good for the S15 and world rugby.

by **Biltong** Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:02 pm

I hate the conference system.

If SA and NZ are going to take the super rugby frnachise system as their main priority to develop players then they need to come to the realisation that their domestic Currie cup and ITM cup can no longer be what it used to be.

The conference system cannot work due to the irregularities of some countries being stronger than others in terms of depth of player talent.

Either reduce the number of teams to 12, in other words 4 teams each, and then play a home and away series to square things up in a proper sense. that way there can be no qualms about who didn't play who at home etc. The conference system is a farce because a team must now peak the year that it has a favourable draw in terms of it's away games. doing it this way there is no room for additional teams from Japan or where ever.

The other alternative is to still do away with the conference system, but then add a few teams form elsewhere. Perhaps give SA and NZ each 6 franchises, australia can retain their 5, bring in 1 or 2 from argentina and Japan.

Even if it is then 21 teams max, it will still take the same number of weeks as the first option.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:08 pm

Trouble is the more profitable that tours to England/France, Tri Nations and Super rugby become then the more the SANZARS have to LOSE by entering the world cup.
If anything its the profitability of the non world cup games thats the issue here, in attending the world cup many viable self sustaining competitions ( like the Jeff) are getting screwed.
Yes theres certain tier 1effectivly on welfare within these competitions in the NH and SH, but even then theres Unions capable of funding this because they can exploit the commercial opportunities freely.
Come to the world cup and a lot of that work is damaged. How happy do you think Adidas are that they invested massively in creating the All Blacks Brand (which depsite what some poeople say the single most globally recognised image associated with Rugby) only to be actiuvely excluded form the showpiece torunemant in favoutr of other sponsors cashing in on their investment. NZ arent happy either because they could raise more money.
Which is another issue again, if the big Unions were allowed to raise their own sponsors ratehr than being servile to the WC companies ones would teh total be greater? NZRFU seem to think so. As Tew points out if they had their way their entire hotel would be decked out in Brand All Blacks and sponsors logos. Theres a suggestuion that the WC isnt making the best of its potential marketting income by having it done centrally.
Surely if teh case can be made tha the total income for Rugby would be greater by allowing more flexibility for Unions to raise their own deals alongside the central tournament sponsors (as happens in soccerball) then this cant be a bad thing for anyone. The central figure may get reduced but a higfher percentage of this could be given to the smaller unions who are less able to raise funds, cut the big boys loose and let them do their thing if the figures really stack up that way.

The idea that a world cup would go ahead and not be damaged if the best and most marketable side in the world pulled out is laughable. And although NZ are the ones "thumping the table" here its not just them that have financial concerns looking forward.
For teh good of teh future of the world game the concerns need addressing taking everyones interests into account. They will be. Whether a good solution that really works is found is another matter, but Id be amazed if NZ werent at the next cup.

by disneychilly Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:14 pm

TycroesOsprey wrote:Millifeld has prduced some of the greatest rugby players in the world including the greatest ever rugby player in the world.

I didn't know Michael Jones went to Millifield.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:17 pm

disneychilly wrote:
TycroesOsprey wrote:Millifeld has prduced some of the greatest rugby players in the world including the greatest ever rugby player in the world.

I didn't know ~~Michael Jones~~ George North went to Millifield.

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:19 pm

Peter Im sorry, but advocating we go down the wendyball route of sponsership at the world cup is crazy talk. That model is corrupt, has led to the corruption of officials that goes right to the heart of FIFA. The wendyball model is not one to go for. Also at least 3 of the world cup sponsers also sponser NZ, not sonmthing that the other tier 1 unions have at this world cup.

As for Adidas, they may not be an official sponser but they are selling official world cup replica shirts at a highly inflated price so I figure they are doing very well out of it.

The money is there Tew knows it, this is just smoke and daggers to get a bigger slice of the pie to the detriment of tier 2 and 3 nations. Honestly its the first time Ive happily agreed with Brian moore.

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:20 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
disneychilly wrote:
TycroesOsprey wrote:Millifeld has prduced some of the greatest rugby players in the world including the greatest ever rugby player in the world.

I didn't know ~~Michael Jones~~ George North went to Millifield.

Gareth Edwards did though. Whistle

by boomeranga Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:25 pm

Ghost in Rugby terms it's a completely solid argument, but do we really only talk about Rugby here? For example, I didn't bring league up. In terms of football in this country, Rugby is a basket case, but do NZ seriously expect us to hand over the keys without recognising the right for asking something in return? SA are hard done by. You guys not so much.

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:26 pm

george north went to Llandovery College and was awesome. Christs were destroyed in the 120th match a copuple of years ago with North in the Llandovery side.

by chewed_mintie Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:32 pm

TycroesOsprey wrote:no match reports mintie?

Can't back it up I'm afraid - silly me

I can tell you QEGS Wakefield toured Aus/NZ two years ago and played Auck Grammar on tour. My best friend's brother was playing and my mate had been telling me for a good three years how well the QEGS team were doing in the UK rugby comps, regularly going undefeated etc (never really took much notice) so when he told me that QEGS had only just lost to AG I was a little surprised. I went on the AG website to find it was their 2nd team which had beaten a team which I had been told had destroyed everything in its path in the UK. I had no reason to doubt my friend right?

I'm sure there is a World Schools comp, tried looking it up....

by chewed_mintie Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:37 pm

Surprised to find out Geordan Murphy is an old boy of Auckland Grammar....

http://www.ags.school.nz/sport/rugby.html

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:43 pm

Rugby world regularly does its schools team of the year,

Walefield havent won anything since the 90s. They arent even in the top teams in the North of England. Sedburgh and Stoneyhurst both have better records, certainly both Llandovery and Blackrock in Wales and Ireland also have better records. Millfield can blow hot and cold.

As for my old school christ's brecon we got destroyed by Christ College christchurch a couple of years ago when they were coached by Ackerman an old breconian and wales centre. So I wouldnt put us even in the top 20 schools anymore. I blame it on us going co-ed in the 90s.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:44 pm

TycroesOsprey wrote:Peter Im sorry, but advocating we go down the wendyball route of sponsership at the world cup is crazy talk. That model is corrupt, has led to the corruption of officials that goes right to the heart of FIFA. The wendyball model is not one to go for. Also at least 3 of the world cup sponsers also sponser NZ, not sonmthing that the other tier 1 unions have at this world cup.

As for Adidas, they may not be an official sponser but they are selling official world cup replica shirts at a highly inflated price so I figure they are doing very well out of it.

The money is there Tew knows it, this is just smoke and daggers to get a bigger slice of the pie to the detriment of tier 2 and 3 nations. Honestly its the first time Ive happily agreed with Brian moore.

Handing out millions to Samoa didnt exactly avoid corruption either did it?

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:45 pm

When I say destoryed it was 31-10 so only a small trouncing.

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:46 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
TycroesOsprey wrote:Peter Im sorry, but advocating we go down the wendyball route of sponsership at the world cup is crazy talk. That model is corrupt, has led to the corruption of officials that goes right to the heart of FIFA. The wendyball model is not one to go for. Also at least 3 of the world cup sponsers also sponser NZ, not sonmthing that the other tier 1 unions have at this world cup.

As for Adidas, they may not be an official sponser but they are selling official world cup replica shirts at a highly inflated price so I figure they are doing very well out of it.

The money is there Tew knows it, this is just smoke and daggers to get a bigger slice of the pie to the detriment of tier 2 and 3 nations. Honestly its the first time Ive happily agreed with Brian moore.

Handing out millions to Samoa didnt exactly avoid corruption either did it?

No it didnt but that is very different to the institutionalised corruption that happens at the heart of FIFA.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:53 pm

TycroesOsprey wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
TycroesOsprey wrote:Peter Im sorry, but advocating we go down the wendyball route of sponsership at the world cup is crazy talk. That model is corrupt, has led to the corruption of officials that goes right to the heart of FIFA. The wendyball model is not one to go for. Also at least 3 of the world cup sponsers also sponser NZ, not sonmthing that the other tier 1 unions have at this world cup.

As for Adidas, they may not be an official sponser but they are selling official world cup replica shirts at a highly inflated price so I figure they are doing very well out of it.

The money is there Tew knows it, this is just smoke and daggers to get a bigger slice of the pie to the detriment of tier 2 and 3 nations. Honestly its the first time Ive happily agreed with Brian moore.

Handing out millions to Samoa didnt exactly avoid corruption either did it?

No it didnt but that is very different to the institutionalised corruption that happens at the heart of FIFA.

Which isnt caused by the Associations being able to raise their own sponsorship. If anything the corruption in FIFA would be even greater if they had more control over the global finances of the game and everyone had to come cap in hand begging for the money to pay their players and run their domestic leagues. As it is the club game and wealthy Associations at least offer some kind of checks and balances to the worst excesses they could go to, through the threat of going outside FIFA and ditching the current set up altogether.
The ability of Associations or Unions being able to raise their own sponsorship isnt directly related to corruption, and I hope youre not trying to suggest that Tew is somehow doing this because he wants to be able to line his own pockets rather than those of the board memebers of various lower tier nations.

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:58 pm

nope Im not suggetsing Tew is corrupt, HOwever I think he is self interested and not looking at the World game as a whole.

by mystiroakey Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:23 pm

greed is the problem.

nz do make money on international rugby- just because one of the years doesnt, over time they make money.

you have to give back to make it a global game.

sponsers havent put time and money into the all blacks for nothing- they get it back - business is business- they do things for monatary gain!!

sport needs to be more thoughtfull and but money back into the game.

i am not saying that the system is perefct as it is - but the only way for rugby as a whole to make more money- is to get bigger. If the top teams use there own sponsership - all that will happening is that less money goes to the growth of the game- the pot isnt getting bigger!

if you grow the game- everyone in the long term will get richer and better as a result.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:46 pm

mystiroakey wrote:greed is the problem.

nz do make money on international rugby- just because one of the years doesnt, over time they make money.

Do they ?

Are you also suggesting that they arent net givers to the world game? Cos I dont beleive that France and England are the soul funders of world rugby.

Again there seems to be a belief that NZ are trying to avoid the world cup so they can buy a gold elephant to replace the white one, they arent at all. They are trying to make it viable for everyone to comepte in so it can continue.
To spread the game globally you also need to look after the interests of the established rugby playing nations and comeptitions outside thw orld cup. The current structure is damaging to those.
If the major Unions can run at a profit how are they suppossed to keep bank rolling the ones with no viable infractructure of their own?

Just as the game cant solely be run in the interests of barnd Haskell it cant be run solely to fund rugby in countries that have no ability or interest in playing it.

If more money ion total can be generated by a system that allows for more slef funding rather than relying on handouts form an incomeptant central body then whats wrong with that? If someone can make a case which shows the total income by going the Tew route would be greater and that this would allow increased funding for the smaller Unions then seriously whats the argument against it?
Why the assumption that in running a viable NZRFU, a viable Tri Nations, and a viable S15 and a profitabel world cup that someone means less money for the smaller unions? Since they are largely funded by what amounts to welfare paymenst form hee big unions the profitability of those big unions is in their interests, if the major nations go bust or ahve to pull ouyt of teh WC whos going to pay Burgers wages to Saracens for Namibia to come and get embaressed by Wales B?

Balance. Tew is just stating the case for his Unions interests. Yes this is self interest, but the growth and viability of the game is everyones self interest...its importnat that all sides have a voice in the argument so they can find a solution that works best for everyone ...not just say " ah well we hate you anyway get lost ha".

by gelodge Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:16 pm

emack2 wrote:THE side that has won MORE matches both inside and outside a RWC than any other team.[THAT is matches WON not %]if anyone is unable to understand me.

Glad to see the bogus claims have gone. It's a lot easier to understand what you wanted to express now that you've corrected your language so that it tallies with reality.

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:20 pm

1. Australia has no viable infrastructure of its own below super 15.
2. The world cup and IRB fund the smaller nations not handouts from the big guys.
4. The money generated by the world cup is used for that funding 105 million quid from the last world cup.
5. As well as the 1 million of compensation the IRB give to the top unions, they have also given 48 million for the elite 8 million more than the alledged losses tew cites.
6. The other major unions are already running at a profit.
7. NZ if they want to improve the game and funding for the minnows, they might be better placed if they actually went and played in some of the pacific islands for instance, something they consistently refuse to do.
8. If NZ due to their structure and insistence on control of their players cannot fund their game then that is where the restructuring needs to start. I dont recall Wales demanding a bigger slice of the pie before regionalism because the club system was financially unsustainable.
9. The six million allged loss the NZRU make is dwarfed by the increased sponsoprship that happens for every successful side after a world cup. Rof instance Welsh revenue increased by 25% after 2003.

This is a grubby attempty to blackmail the IRB which will be to the detriment of the smaller sides.

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:29 pm

This is what was released by the NZRU in April of this year with regards their finances, I suggest everybody looks at the RWC details, and ask yourself why Tew is now claiming the exact opposite despite figures released by his own union 6 months ago. whilst NZ rugby has been making a loss its not down to the world cup.

"On the positive side, commercial income increased by $4.8 million when exchange rate movements are excluded, which was significant given the economic climate.”

In relation to RWC 2011, the NZRU has accounted for its share of the operating costs incurred by Rugby New Zealand 2011 Limited which continue to increase as expected as the tournament nears. These amounted to $6.1 million (one third of Rugby New Zealand 2011 Ltd’s operating loss of $18.2 million).

However, the treatment of the funds held in GB Pounds to meet the NZRU’s commitments to the IRB mean there will be a surplus with respect to RWC in the NZRU’s books in the current financial year.

“We will see last year’s deficit reversed in the 2011 year as the NZRU is able to recognise the gains made on our hedging arrangements that were put in place to cover our commitments to the IRB for hosting the Tournament,” said Mr Tew.

The NZRU continues to maintain healthy cash reserves of $35.9 million.

Mr Tew said these reserves allowed the NZRU the latitude to maintain its investments in community rugby and Provincial Union funding support. That investment included core grants to Provincial Unions of $8.3 million and further distributions or cost savings to Provincial Unions and Franchises of an additional $10.6 million in tagged funding, resulting in a total distribution of $18.9 million.

by TheGreyGhost Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:31 pm

gelodge wrote:
emack2 wrote:THE side that has won MORE matches both inside and outside a RWC than any other team.[THAT is matches WON not %]if anyone is unable to understand me.

Glad to see the bogus claims have gone. It's a lot easier to understand what you wanted to express now that you've corrected your language so that it tallies with reality.

Exactly, it's not possible to project a % return over a short period of time into an estimate of long term success. There's no guarantee that SA in '87 or '91 would have won at the same %rate. So comparing % success is not comparing apples with apples.

Excellent points again emack.

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:43 pm

And another point payments to union officals in NZ increased by 6 million dollars to 31 Dec 2010 compared to the 2009 financial report, hmmm a 20% pay rise for Steve Tew and other blazers?

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:55 pm

They also lost 3.5 million on the exchange market

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:18 pm

And whats really interesting is 2/3 of their capital is held in foreign reserves like the dollar and yen which have been considerably hit in the last year.

NOt only bluster for the IRB its sounding like bluster to coverup poor management decisions taken by their CEO. who? Steve Tew.

by Shifty Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:09 pm

New Zealand won their only World Cup so far in 1987, was it devalued because South Africa were not competing? The answer is no!

Australia won the Cup in 1991, was that devalued because South Africa were not competing? No again.

South Africa were taken out of the World Game and the world moved on.
The world will move on if New Zealand goes too.

Aside from the Haka their is nothing that makes them anymore special than any other tier 1 country.

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:17 pm

Look I dont think anyone thinks the all blacks will pull out of the RWC. This whole announcement and its content have been deliberatly releaed to cause embarressment to the IRB at the world showpiece event.

Thats what makes me angry more than anything the shabby way they have gone about this espescially when the IRB said in May that this would be reviewed.

At the moment 60%+ of IRB funding goes direct to the pockets of the tier 1 unions. Personally I think the weighting should be totally the other way around the tier 2 + 3 countries are the ones that need IRB funding the most not us Tier 1 superpowers of the game. Self interest and greed is bad for the world game.

by Taffineastbourne Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:40 pm

[quote="TycroesOsprey"]george north went to Llandovery College and was awesome. Christs were destroyed in the 120th match a copuple of years ago with North in the Llandovery side.[/quote
We dont dish out Rugby scholarships so any year that we beat you is so special.That would be my year!

by Taffineastbourne Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:42 pm

Adios NZ.We dont do blackmail.You'll be sorry!!

by Gatts Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:54 pm

If NZ leave RWC at least one of the other countries might get a chance to win it because lets face it they have won it so many times themselves. Run

by emack2 Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:05 pm

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/rugby/5708123/Call-Tews-bluff-over-All-Blacks-at-World-Cup
Stephen Jones comments on it.

by TycroesOsprey Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:19 pm

Sadly Taff it was my year that lost 19-0 in the hundredth match Cry

North did play in the 120th though didnt he?

by emack2 Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:58 pm

Gelodge my original post "THE most successful RWC team overall of all time"
Please note the word OVERALL that is fact not a BOGUS claim,IF you wish to misinterprate it.
That is not my fault,I never knowingly make bogus claims.
Yes,I know i am a pedantic old fart before someone else says it.

by TheGreyGhost Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:02 pm

I think it's debatable at the moment emack in all honesty. The world cup hasn't been our strong suit.

Frankly counting up semi-final appearances and dividing by pi doesn't sit well with me.

One things for sure, if we can win it this time, we'll be back up there with the Ockers and the Saffers.

Past near misses is all statistics and largely irrelevant.

by aucklandlaurie Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:10 pm

After reading the article by Stephen Jones, He obviously has a real complex with New Zealand.
I bet if I came onto 606v2 and spouted the hatred and vitriol about rugby or the people of any other rugby nation I would be banned.

by TheGreyGhost Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:55 pm

Exactly, I've been banned twice merely for pointing out facts about the England team's constituents.

by Gatts Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:58 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: After reading the article by Stephen Jones, He obviously has a real complex with New Zealand.
I bet if I came onto 606v2 and spouted the hatred and vitriol about rugby or the people of any other rugby nation I would be banned.

But 'Irish' refs is okay Very Happy

by aucklandlaurie Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:11 am

Gatts
In four out of the last five tests the All blacks have played we have been assigned Irish referees, a task which is being repeatedly proven as beyond their capabilities.

by Gatts Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:20 am

aucklandlaurie wrote: Gatts
In four out of the last five tests the All blacks have played we have been assigned Irish referees, a task which is being repeatedly proven as beyond their capabilities.

Get a grip, this is an extraordinarily ridiculous comment...what is the significance of their irish heritage ?

by aucklandlaurie Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:32 am

pity is that its true though.

by Gatts Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:57 am

You have revealed yourself to be a bigot laurie. clap

by blackcanelion Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:31 am

Back to the story at hand. I watched an interview with Rob Nicholls (International players union), Paul Rees (UK Journalist who penned the story) and Mark Reason (Stephen Jones write alike). They key point of all the discussions is that RWC and to some degree the IRB are still products of the amauer age. In particular, the RWC model is 25 years old and essentially out of date, and out of step with the modern professional system. I think they are probably right.

by PJHolybloke Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:35 am

TheGreyGhost wrote:Exactly, I've been banned twice merely for pointing out facts about the England team's constituents.

It's not "exactly" though is it? I would suggest that your understanding as to why you were banned (twice) is about as tenuous as your grasp on the meaning of "constituents" as used in the sentence above, the only difference being that it made sense that you were banned.

I did miss you though. rose

by gelodge Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:41 am

emack2 wrote:Gelodge my original post "THE most successful RWC team overall of all time"
Please note the word OVERALL that is fact not a BOGUS claim,IF you wish to misinterprate it.
That is not my fault,I never knowingly make bogus claims.
Yes,I know i am a pedantic old fart before someone else says it.

That wasn't your original post actually, you've misquoted yourself, it was "THE most successful overall RWC side.", but anyway, that is a beyond loose interpretation of successful. Ignoring that SA have won more of the games they have played and have won half of the WCs they have entered, you then have Australia who have entered the same number of competitions as NZ, have won only one less game than NZ, but have won the competition twice and reached the final one more time than NZ. By any meaningful measure Australia trump NZ in the rather bogus criteria of "overall".

Your other claim in a later post was "THE most successful team in or out of RWC on games won/lost", won/lost is a ratio, and as I've pointed out, SA trump NZ in the WC there. If you wanted to claim outright number of games won, then you should have omitted the "/lost" part. If you were trying to claim the ratio based on all tests including WC games, then "in or out" is the qualifying element where you went wrong.

Nothing wrong with pedantry.

by PJHolybloke Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:58 am

blackcanelion wrote:Back to the story at hand. I watched an interview with Rob Nicholls (International players union), Paul Rees (UK Journalist who penned the story) and Mark Reason (Stephen Jones write alike). They key point of all the discussions is that RWC and to some degree the IRB are still products of the amauer age. In particular, the RWC model is 25 years old and essentially out of date, and out of step with the modern professional system. I think they are probably right.

TGG and I had an agreeable conversation on this the other day (honest), and the facts are that the current RWC format is not working, and furthermore it is not actually achieving any of the IRB's stated intentions with regard to growing the game on a global level.

I would like to make three observations on Tew's statement in order of importance.

1. If NZ are honestly finding it difficult to justify their involvement in the tournament (and I believe they are), there is a need for a rethink on the financial mechanics. It is a purely financial argument NZ have in this instance and it is opposed to the financial argument of the IRB - call in the bean counters and sort it out.

2. There has to be a better format devised to produce a truely competetive RWC that shortens the competition for the leading nations. NZ in particular have had to kiss goodbye a particulary lucrative period of their revenue generating calendar in order to ritually slaughter the likes of Japan, Tonga, France A and are now kicking their heels in anticipation of putting the "mighty" Canada to the sword. It just doesn't make sense for NZ or the proverbial lambs.

3. The timing for his statement will win few friends around the rugby playing world and smacks of disrespect (trust me I'm English), as he has chosen to raise this issue on the back of the exposure NZ is getting from hosting the very competition Tew is suggesting will be of negligable importance to NZ in 4 years time.

The RWC DOES need a shake up, I think that was on the IRB's agenda as early as March this year, but the current competition should be allowed to conclude before it's validity or viability is called into question by ANY of the competing Unions.

by emack2 Fri Sep 30, 2011 9:55 am

I think the main problem is and this applies to All countries,when the game went professional.The management did`nt it was[is?]run by old players,as a sport not as a business.
You only have to look at the mess England RFU is in legal writs,votes of no confidence etc.[France is similar I believe]
The article as I read it was that IF they couldn`t afford it the All Blacks would`nt play 2015.
Which is different from refusing to play in it unless they get there way.
Incidentally 2015 is hosted by England,is that EXCLUSIVELY does anyone know.
ALL England Stadia,Twickenham ,Welford Road etc.OR does it include The Millenium Stadium,Murrayfield,Croke Park etc.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:04 am

PJHolybloke wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:Back to the story at hand. I watched an interview with Rob Nicholls (International players union), Paul Rees (UK Journalist who penned the story) and Mark Reason (Stephen Jones write alike). They key point of all the discussions is that RWC and to some degree the IRB are still products of the amauer age. In particular, the RWC model is 25 years old and essentially out of date, and out of step with the modern professional system. I think they are probably right.

TGG and I had an agreeable conversation on this the other day (honest), and the facts are that the current RWC format is not working, and furthermore it is not actually achieving any of the IRB's stated intentions with regard to growing the game on a global level.

I would like to make three observations on Tew's statement in order of importance.

1. If NZ are honestly finding it difficult to justify their involvement in the tournament (and I believe they are), there is a need for a rethink on the financial mechanics. It is a purely financial argument NZ have in this instance and it is opposed to the financial argument of the IRB - call in the bean counters and sort it out.

2. There has to be a better format devised to produce a truely competetive RWC that shortens the competition for the leading nations. NZ in particular have had to kiss goodbye a particulary lucrative period of their revenue generating calendar in order to ritually slaughter the likes of Japan, Tonga, France A and are now kicking their heels in anticipation of putting the "mighty" Canada to the sword. It just doesn't make sense for NZ or the proverbial lambs.

3. The timing for his statement will win few friends around the rugby playing world and smacks of disrespect (trust me I'm English), as he has chosen to raise this issue on the back of the exposure NZ is getting from hosting the very competition Tew is suggesting will be of negligable importance to NZ in 4 years time.

The RWC DOES need a shake up, I think that was on the IRB's agenda as early as March this year, but the current competition should be allowed to conclude before it's validity or viability is called into question by ANY of the competing Unions.

What he said, but with jokes

by PJHolybloke Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:19 pm

emack2 wrote:I think the main problem is and this applies to All countries,when the game went professional.The management did`nt it was[is?]run by old players,as a sport not as a business.
You only have to look at the mess England RFU is in legal writs,votes of no confidence etc.[France is similar I believe]
The article as I read it was that IF they couldn`t afford it the All Blacks would`nt play 2015.
Which is different from refusing to play in it unless they get there way.
Incidentally 2015 is hosted by England,is that EXCLUSIVELY does anyone know.
ALL England Stadia,Twickenham ,Welford Road etc.OR does it include The Millenium Stadium,Murrayfield,Croke Park etc.

The Millenium Stadium is in the mix emack, Cardiff will host one of the pools and at least one but probably two two of the QF's.

In London they will use HQ, Wembley and The Emirates stadium, the only rugby grounds other than HQ will be Welford Rd and Kingsholm, the rest are roundball grounds, Old Trafford (Manchester), Anfield (Liverpool), Ricoh Arena (Coventry) St James' Park (Newcastle), Elland Rd (Leeds) & St Mary's (Southampton).

by TycroesOsprey Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
PJHolybloke wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:Back to the story at hand. I watched an interview with Rob Nicholls (International players union), Paul Rees (UK Journalist who penned the story) and Mark Reason (Stephen Jones write alike). They key point of all the discussions is that RWC and to some degree the IRB are still products of the amauer age. In particular, the RWC model is 25 years old and essentially out of date, and out of step with the modern professional system. I think they are probably right.

TGG and I had an agreeable conversation on this the other day (honest), and the facts are that the current RWC format is not working, and furthermore it is not actually achieving any of the IRB's stated intentions with regard to growing the game on a global level.

I would like to make three observations on Tew's statement in order of importance.

1. If NZ are honestly finding it difficult to justify their involvement in the tournament (and I believe they are), there is a need for a rethink on the financial mechanics. It is a purely financial argument NZ have in this instance and it is opposed to the financial argument of the IRB - call in the bean counters and sort it out.

2. There has to be a better format devised to produce a truely competetive RWC that shortens the competition for the leading nations. NZ in particular have had to kiss goodbye a particulary lucrative period of their revenue generating calendar in order to ritually slaughter the likes of Japan, Tonga, France A and are now kicking their heels in anticipation of putting the "mighty" Canada to the sword. It just doesn't make sense for NZ or the proverbial lambs.

3. The timing for his statement will win few friends around the rugby playing world and smacks of disrespect (trust me I'm English), as he has chosen to raise this issue on the back of the exposure NZ is getting from hosting the very competition Tew is suggesting will be of negligable importance to NZ in 4 years time.

The RWC DOES need a shake up, I think that was on the IRB's agenda as early as March this year, but the current competition should be allowed to conclude before it's validity or viability is called into question by ANY of the competing Unions.

What he said, but with jokes

Absolutely agree with all of this, but as a caveat the NZRU need to be honest about their losses and rather than trying to blame RWC explain the 20% increase in wages (6.5 million) in the last year and the 3.5 milliion lost on foreign exchange markets because they decided to hold much of their capital in dollars and yen.

by Sponsored content