All Blacks to Boycott RWC 2015?

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?

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 WRU were paticularly amatuer in their organisation, what makes this deliciously ironic for me as a welshman was that it was two kiwis, moffett and Henry who dragged the WRU kicking and screaming into the modern era and forced us to cut our coat to suit our cloth. We had to forget about the past and move on with a viable financial system in place. Thats finally working, I think NZRU need to do the same.

Just a question.

If NZ is not playing the RWC in 2015 becuase of reduced tests in a RWC year, then explain to me who are they going to play to make income if all the other countries are still going on as usual.

They will then earn even less money.

What i dont understand is that if it is true, that the NZRU, Did know before the game kicked off that they would not make a profit from the RWC, then why oh why did they take it on in the first place?

It does not make any sence at all.

majesticimperialman wrote:What i dont understand is that if it is true, that the NZRU, Did know before the game kicked off that they would not make a profit from the RWC, then why oh why did they take it on in the first place?

It does not make any sence at all.

Maj its true they make an operating loss on RWC but what they didnt say is that they have hedge funds set in place to cover the outlay which will actually give them a profit clearing the deficit from the world cup.

smoke and daggers.

TycroesOsprey wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:What i dont understand is that if it is true, that the NZRU, Did know before the game kicked off that they would not make a profit from the RWC, then why oh why did they take it on in the first place?

It does not make any sence at all.

Maj its true they make an operating loss on RWC but what they didnt say is that they have hedge funds set in place to cover the outlay which will actually give them a profit clearing the deficit from the world cup.

smoke and daggers.

They wanted the World Cup because they wanted the world cup and were willing the pay (or at least the NZ govt. were)

The point is that during any world cup all top sides will make a loss due to the loss of revenue from home games. Some (like Wales)
cram in an additional game to make a bit of cash. NZ make a decent amount of money even from away games so they really miss out.