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?

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

Would we miss them?

"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."

not sure i do- Its very simple- you take something on understanding the issues that could arrise in the first place- If you have any grievences resolve them before you take on the responsibilty or dont take the world cup.

You cant whinge in the aftermath.

GW I hesitate to entertain you in conversation since I fear I may be banned for 14 days for simply responding to you. However with great care I'll go on...

As I've been saying for some time now. It's hard for a Kiwi to argue the point and be taken seriously. However please place aside your petty parochial point scoring for a moment and lets' think about what the RWC was supposed to achieve - expansion of the game. Erm. Nope. Still the same top 8 sides, still the same minnow annihilation. Nothing is changing, if anything there are more Kiwis and Samoans in foreign teams, amateurs against professionals, more domination by the top unions and very little chance for developing anything. Secondly, as a spectacle, the RWC is dire. Face it, aside from NZ v France, SA v Wales and the look on Quade Cooper's face when Ireland knocked over the Aussies, the only thing more dire than the rugby has been the appalling refereeing.

Some of the tier-B nations playing each other has been great to watch, and I actually enjoyed the USA v Italy match for the pure optimism and endeavor of the USA versus the professional cynicism of Italy. But it seems the IRB could get more of this kind of competition going more regularly without needing to burden us with matches like South Africa v Namibia or England v Romania which are just a waste of everyone's time.

Another point is that the quality of the refereeing is too poor to sustain the prize of being "world champions" for four years, when more often than not the tournament is decided by incompetence on behalf of an official.

Finally add to that the money-losing nature of the event for participant unions and the fact that the tier-B sides are still getting the raw end of the pineapple and I just can't see what continuing with this farce offers.

dogtooth wrote:

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

Would we miss them?

Actually NZ more regularly make the semi-finals than anyone else. And are yet to choke at home, like England, Wales, France and Australia did.

NZ and SA being the only two nations who had the mental fortitude and chefs (respectively) to win at home.

any nation suggesting the rwc is scrapped surely does not have the long term best interests of the game at heart. this sounds like sour grapes to me.

this rwc has been a success for many of the minows/t2 nations. the bonus point system gives a chance for the minows to come away with something, even if it is a losing bonus point or two. that can be a benchmark for future success. eg, two losing bonus points to be upped to a win next time.

i suggest that NZ needs the rwc more than the rwc needs new zealand. the tournament did ok without southafrica

TheGreyGhost wrote:

dogtooth wrote:

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

Would we miss them?

Actually NZ more regularly make the semi-finals than anyone else. And are yet to choke at home, like England, Wales, France and Australia did.

NZ and SA being the only two nations who had the mental fortitude and chefs (respectively) to win at home.

wales didnt choke in '99. we did well to get to the quaters and were beaten by a brilliant aus.

mystiroakey wrote:"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."

not sure i do- Its very simple- you take something on understanding the issues that could arrise in the first place- If you have any grievences resolve them before you take on the responsibilty or dont take the world cup.

You cant whinge in the aftermath.

You clearly don't understand then

1. There is a loss borne by our governement for hosting the tournament. We all knew this would arise. The world cup would take place even if it wasn't held in NZ

2. For 3 years in 4, there are tours which GENERATE money for the unions. There are no tours this year so revenue generation is none, hence the LOSS OF REVENUE to the NZ union.

These are different issues and we are NOT talking about the loss on the tournament, which again I stress so you understand, is being met by our government.

Other than the time that England won it, I struggle to recall the RWC being a success for minnows?

I suggest that the evidence against the RWC is compelling and rather than those suggesting it be scrapped exhibiting "sour grapes", that those from unions who's performance has suspiciously been above their ranking outside of world cups (and also bring in the most advertising revenue to the IRB, and are also over-represented by junior referees in finals), are rather like drowning men clinging on to a straw that clearly is not sustainable.

I suggest that it is actually England and the RWC who are in an essential life preserving symbiosis and that NZ and SA are entirely irrelevant. Other than that England desperately need their involvement (on the other side of the draw as per usual) to justify their hokey self inflated opinion of themselves on the basis of the tournament's skewed results?

GG I think the RWC is developing the game. Remember we've only been professional 15 years.

The tier 2 sides have been much more competitive in the past two RWC's and we are only getting the big scorelines a few matches in when the lack of depth and tough schedule is catching up with the lower ranked sides.

Tonga and Fiji have been disappointing but Canada, Japan, the USA and Georgia have all gave a good account of themselves and Samoa are right up there now with the top sides.

Argentina look like reaching a 2nd successive QF and Italy and Samoa are also in with a shout going into the final round of pool games so you can't just say it's always the top 8 sides who dominate.

The refereeing has been very inconsistant but this has been a great tournament so far.

chewed_mintie wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"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."

not sure i do- Its very simple- you take something on understanding the issues that could arrise in the first place- If you have any grievences resolve them before you take on the responsibilty or dont take the world cup.

You cant whinge in the aftermath.

You clearly don't understand then

1. There is a loss borne by our governement for hosting the tournament. We all knew this would arise. The world cup would take place even if it wasn't held in NZ

2. For 3 years in 4, there are tours which GENERATE money for the unions. There are no tours this year so revenue generation is none, hence the LOSS OF REVENUE to the NZ union.

These are different issues and we are NOT talking about the loss on the tournament, which again I stress so you understand, is being met by our government.

ok i get what you are saying - the whole hosting the world cup is irrelevant to them- they are struggling every world cup year irrelevant of them hosting it.

if this is a big problem mind (it seems like its the lack of tri nations during that year) why arnt SA or Aus geting invloved

Chewed whilst I hate to agree with Oakey Ive already pointed out the increased revenue streams generated by the world cup. Ive pointed out the boost to the NZ economy, Ive pointed out that the loss in direct revenue is more than made up for by the subsequent boost in sponsership and marketing generated after the competition ends, Ive also pointed out that Wales , Oz, France all made a profit.

If NZ have lost money on this showpiece then they need to look at themselves not have a tantrum and try and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

1. You got the world cup as a favour because there is no way your infrastructure or stadia can handle the growth or the world cup as an event.

2 Every host nation has made a profit on the world cup since 95. except it seems NZ?

3. World rugby didnt suffer because of the boks absence in 87 or 91 and no offence the boks are a massive brand in world rugby too.

Personally I would like to see a plate competition introduced for the tier 2 nations to run concurrently with the cup after the group games.

roddersm wrote:

The refereeing has been very inconsistant but this has been a great tournament so far.

inconsistant reffing is the one constant in rugby.

Be careful with that "increased revenue stream to NZ".

Firstly this is entirely different to the NZRFU having a stream of revenue.

Secondly any rudimentary study of tourism will demonstrate that large events draw the same tourists but in a clump. Heightened revenue is balanced by slumps on either side. Generally speaking, the vast majority of those who go, would have gone to NZ and spent money anyway, they just chose to do it when the RWC is on.

Or why dont they hold a tri nations that year anyway!

And why are they making this statement during a world cup- Surely if they concentrate on winning the thing and or hosting the best tourny of all time they will have more bargaining power to make claims/changes!!

All Blacks to Boycott RWC 2015.

Great news at least the rest of us won't have to see them do their silly dance anymore.

Is anyone else fed up with seeing a silly fat man pretending to blow a horn before each game?

Maybe in 2015 we should have a famous figure from England's history to invite both teams onto the pitch?

Who would you pick?

I’d go for a Churchill look a like for the first game.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Be careful with that "increased revenue stream to NZ".

Firstly this is entirely different to the NZRFU having a stream of revenue.

Secondly any rudimentary study of tourism will demonstrate that large events draw the same tourists but in a clump. Heightened revenue is balanced by slumps on either side. Generally speaking, the vast majority of those who go, would have gone to NZ and spent money anyway, they just chose to do it when the RWC is on.

I havent just pointed to the increase for NZ as a country although its clear from your own countries press as well as the bbc how considerable that has been.

I have pointed out the fact that every host nation since 95 has made a profit, even wales! with increased revenue in sponsership and marketing generated by hosting a global event that more than outweighed the loss in direct revenue from ticket sales.

http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/news/world-cup-visitors-boost-bay-economy/1118834/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14893361

http://topnews.ae/content/29151-rugby-world-cup-2012-likely-boost-economic-growth-canterbury

As for the thousands of fans from around the world who have gone there, its for the world cup they would not have gone to NZ at another time thats just a joke.

1. A favour to us? Thanks a lot to all the big brothers out there for letting us have this as a favour!

2. Yes – profits have been made at other WCS. The loss only amounts to Direct Costs against Ticket Sales – which I find myself repeating over and over and over. Yes we will receive wider economic benefits as a result, but direct costs are more than direct revenues at this point in time. Something which the govt and NZRFU knew full well. NOT THE ISSUE. As I have said, the IRB gets their full pot of gold.

3. The Rugby World may not suffer, you are correct. Just don’t expect any interest outside of the traditional areas when trying to sell the TV rights without NZ which pulls in the interest from outside of the main areas. Do not underestimate our pulling power in Asia and America, which is where the money is. You can say it is minimal if you want, but it is more than any other team in the world.

The intention of this thread seems to have crossed over onto a loss making world cup for some reason. To put it clearly, if the WC was in Australia/UK/Japan wherever, NZ (and other Tier One countries) would STILL be missing out on income from lost fixtures as the IRB compensation is NOT ENOUGH to cover the revenues lost from a NH tour. This is the crux of the matter, not anything about a loss making WC, which for the last time I will stress will be met by the NZ government.

The point hes making doesnt relate directly to their hosting of this world cup anyway, its the amount they stand to lose form entering the next one thats the issue going forward.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:The point hes making doesnt relate directly to their hosting of this world cup anyway, its the amount they stand to lose form entering the next one thats the issue going forward.

Praise the lord, PSW has come to save the day!! Someone finally sees the point of this!

Chewed you are obbviously a proud kiwi. Do you think they have handled the situation well and think its ok to do this during the middle of the world cup as i described earlier.

there has been confusing in realtion to the point of the all blacks claims. so no point talking about who is paying for any supposed loss on the wc either.

Its a simple matter and its the fact that NZ are concenred about losing out on tour revenue during the world cup years(kmmaterial of hosting the thing)- nothing else needs to be discussed here i suppose- but then its a fine talking point but not what the kiwis are whinging about

HERSH wrote:
All Blacks to Boycott RWC 2015.

Great news at least the rest of us won't have to see them do their silly dance anymore.

Is anyone else fed up with seeing a silly fat man pretending to blow a horn before each game?

Maybe in 2015 we should have a famous figure from England's history to invite both teams onto the pitch?

Who would you pick?

I’d go for a Churchill look a like for the first game.

Time for a stiff upper lip here GG old chap. We don't want you spending another 2 weeks in the cooler .

mystiroakey wrote:Chewed you are obbviously a proud kiwi. Do you think they have handled the situation well and think its ok to do this during the middle of the world cup as i described earlier.

I do think it could have been timed better, but then again timing is all about maximising impact. Funny that the IRB wanted to play this down straight away and that a review is being implemented immediately which says something about the validity of the threat.

Let me be clear, I'm not the biggest fan of Steve Tew and he won't ever be NZer of the Year. There is a clear issue here though that affects all of the Tier One nations (feel like I'm repeating myself again!) and it needs to be resolved.

I don't usually get too wound up on here...I do apologise if I have come across as so.

TheGreyGhost wrote:
I suggest that the evidence against the RWC is compelling and rather than those suggesting it be scrapped exhibiting "sour grapes", that those from unions who's performance has suspiciously been above their ranking outside of world cups (and also bring in the most advertising revenue to the IRB, and are also over-represented by junior referees in finals), are rather like drowning men clinging on to a straw that clearly is not sustainable.

So in essence you are saying there is a conspiracy by the IRB to favour England during world cup years.

The problem with that theory is that the IRB is a body consisting of the national unions not some independent being floating above everything. Why would the NZRFU, WRFU etc want England to win when if there own country wins the financial benifits from sponsors bonuses, increased shirt sales etc would be huge. It just makes no sense.

As Ive said mintie the other tier 1 nations accept the loss in revenue from lost ticket sales because exposure at the global showpiece is far more lucrative to sponsers who otherwise have no interest in rugby. The increase in revenue after a world cup to conutries that perform well by far outweighs the loss from ticket sales in 3 matches. Thats to the union not the country

Look at Argentinas increased revenue after 2007, Of course the blacks dont tend to perform well in the world cup so.........

The average American does not know who the all blacks are, has no interest in them or the world cup. The US tv companies schedule college lacrosse over international rugby.

You overestimate your importance to the growth of the world game. As I said NZ as a country simply wont be able to host the world cup again, it is getting far too big for such a small country with limited infrastructure, thats why you got the world cup this time because you wont be able to host it again.

Thats a pretty big favour to throw back because your union unlike the last three host unions have failed to make a profit.

The average American has heard of the All Blacks actually. I've spent a lot of time in the US, and regularly meet American's who know the brand but have no idea where they're from (I once spent a good hour arguing with an insistent resident of St Louis that they were not in fact the South African All Blacks.

Please separate the issue of the tournament profit and loss, and the loss to the union from decreased income from internationals in the same year.

The point about sponsorship is exactly wrong, since RWC rules severely restrict the value of the team to their sponsors throughout the tournament.

mystiroakey wrote:
ok i get what you are saying - the whole hosting the world cup is irrelevant to them- they are struggling every world cup year irrelevant of them hosting it.

if this is a big problem mind (it seems like its the lack of tri nations during that year) why arnt SA or Aus geting invloved

South african rugby union has already compromised by sharing the television revenue a thrid each even though they have the biggest television audience.

its fine chewed. We all know that either way the all blacks will be fighting to win the 2015 world cup

TheGreyGhost wrote:The average American has heard of the All Blacks actually.

They probably watched that god awful yank film about rugby, you know the one with the guy doing the Haka in a police cell, it came out about the same time as Invictus and Alfie!

http://www.foreverstrongmovie.com/

This one Hersh? Yeah, the US college rugby team who invented the Haka, wear black and all speak fluent Maori for no apparent reason.

Hilarious stuff.

chewed_mintie wrote:. Do not underestimate our pulling power in Asia and America, which is where the money is. You can say it is minimal if you want, but it is more than any other team in the world.

Chewed that is a completly false statement, The US is not a growth market for rugby, outside of a world cup US tv companies have no interest in the game and interest during the world cup depends upon the eagles. The all blacks have no impact on that.

Aisa could be a growth market but until an aisian side is able to compete well at international level it most ceryainly is not where the money is. The kids on the streets of seoul, peking, singapore, bangkok, KL, etc are wearing man utd or chelsea tops not All black jerseys walk around those cities you will not see an all black shirt unless its on a tourist and a kiwi tourist at that.

chewed_mintie wrote:Let me be clear, I'm not the biggest fan of Steve Tew and he won't ever be NZer of the Year. There is a clear issue here though that affects all of the Tier One nations (feel like I'm repeating myself again!) and it needs to be resolved.

I don't usually get too wound up on here...I do apologise if I have come across as so.

Yes there is. I am unsure whether the other Countries are just prepared to bite the bullet and accept that reduced income in WC year is a price they are prepared to pay to enable Rugby a chance to gro OR whether they are hiding and letting NZRFU take the flack for what they are all saying behind closed doors.

Typically England play 4 AIs - but did have one home match in the warm ups. In terms of income each home game brings in around US$5mill in gate receipts. Plus there is lost television revenues and other marketing opportunities. The loss to the RFU dwarfs that suffered by NZRFU. Knowing the RFU I am sure that if there was anyone left (and if they were not hosting 2015 - which is budgeted to make a large profit) they would say something.

(If they had you know Greyghost would be supporting the RFU, as he always does)

TycroesOsprey wrote:
Aisa could be a growth market but until an aisian side is able to compete well at international level it most ceryainly is not where the money is. The kids on the streets of seoul, peking, singapore, bangkok, KL, etc are wearing man utd or chelsea tops not All black jerseys walk around those cities you will not see an all black shirt unless its on a tourist and a kiwi tourist at that.

Or an England fan

very good points raised tycoes, The only way to make money in the US or asian markets is by helping them out getting better- its a long term approach and that can only be acheievd if the top tier nations take less of the pot!!

new zealand surely need to get proactive with there domestic revenues. One example sell and market the league abroad with the notion that its the sort of home of rugby!

TycroesOsprey wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:. Do not underestimate our pulling power in Asia and America, which is where the money is. You can say it is minimal if you want, but it is more than any other team in the world.

Chewed that is a completly false statement, The US is not a growth market for rugby, outside of a world cup US tv companies have no interest in the game and interest during the world cup depends upon the eagles. The all blacks have no impact on that.

Aisa could be a growth market but until an aisian side is able to compete well at international level it most ceryainly is not where the money is. The kids on the streets of seoul, peking, singapore, bangkok, KL, etc are wearing man utd or chelsea tops not All black jerseys walk around those cities you will not see an all black shirt unless its on a tourist and a kiwi tourist at that.

I assume tahts whyt all hollywwood movies about Rugby heavily feature the Haka and the "extra" Bledisloe matches are played in ...Asia. Japan is a huge growth market for rugby, even the Brand himslef will be playing there next year.
Looking forwards everyones moneys in China, whether they suck at rugby or not theres a huge demand for international sporting icons and brands.


Im losing track of our argument anyway, are you seriously suggesting that if NZ pulled out of the next world cup due to finanacial problems that this wouldnt negativly affect the rest of the cup and the participating Unions? If it is then frankly you are wrong.

A few points,Bath MBOG you wumming troll,All Blacks 6 RWC`s to date
won 1,final won,semi-final 3,only side todate won all there group games.
THE most successful overall RWC side.
The losses include £ 3.5 million taken by IRB,wasn`t this bid BEFORE the Lehman Bank crash.With the WHOLE world in economic turmoil,so much so the next 6 weeks determines whether double dip depression occurs.
Wouldn`t there have been games and teams hosted in Christchurch but for the earthquake.
People here rubbishing 1987 because the Boks were`nt there,but strangely not 1991.
How valid would a RWC be without them,maybe they should withdraw from
super rugby and 4Ns too,not to mention contacts with NH for about 7 years.
you might get your overall standard of Rugby by results up to there`s by then.
Let`s face it that is words,a basic starting point fot negoiations,to be taken with a lorry load of salt.
As to comments about awkward viewing hours,THAT is`nt worthy of comment it`s beneath contempt.
Tv rights worldwide rule kick off times,are we to now only have RWCs hosted in Europe?
How does that suit SH viewers when it`s held in NH?

Maybe i am being naive or stupid, but can someone please explain this to me.

Normally NZ will have 6 Tri Nation tests, 3 mid year tests and 4 end of year tests, plus that little extra bonus one they do in hongkong.

That is 14 tests.

With this being a world cup year and you played 4 Tri Nation tests, 1 pre RWC match vs Fiji and then hopefully 7 tests during the RWC.

That leaves you short of 2 tests. australia has organised themselves a match vs wales at the end of the year, now surely NZRU knew about this scheduling in advance.

did they not think to get an extra match in, or were nobody interested?

TheGreyGhost wrote:The average American has heard of the All Blacks actually. I've spent a lot of time in the US, and regularly meet American's who know the brand but have no idea where they're from (I once spent a good hour arguing with an insistent resident of St Louis that they were not in fact the South African All Blacks.

Please separate the issue of the tournament profit and loss, and the loss to the union from decreased income from internationals in the same year.

The point about sponsorship is exactly wrong, since RWC rules severely restrict the value of the team to their sponsors throughout the tournament.

1. the fact that they dont even know where the Blacks are from and you had a conversation about that tells you exactly how much they care and know.

2. Sponsership during the world cup is of course covered by the blanket ban. HOwever I wasnt talking about that was I. The tier one nations who perform at the world cup gain in sponsership and marketing after the world cup ends. The seven weeks of the tournament is covered, but if you team does well at the event you gain consederably. I say again look at the growth in argentine rugby and the income generated by their performance in 2007. Look at the fact they will join the tri nations all because of their appearance in 07 think about all of that extra revenue generated because their team did well.

Wales suffered in sponsership after the last world cup, Scotland will after this world cup unless We see a miracle. Do you think the Boks sponsers will give the same amount for a team that gets knocked out by NZ in the semis as opposed to the reigning world champions?

The world cup is a massive oppurtunity to increase a unions global brand and subsequent revenue. If the NZRU dont see that then there is serious mismanagement at the top of your union. However Tew knows all this anyway he knows that if the all blacks perform at the world cup the revenue gain for the union will be massive. Wales know if the can make the quarters or even the semis the increase in revenue will be astounding. England have seen it happen to their union, so have all the successful sides at a world cup and of course success is relative. Tew's just stirring it up to get a bigger slice of the pie completly undeservedly.

EMACK2 do you mean me?

If so did you not see my

[quote]

TycroesOsprey wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:The average American has heard of the All Blacks actually. I've spent a lot of time in the US, and regularly meet American's who know the brand but have no idea where they're from (I once spent a good hour arguing with an insistent resident of St Louis that they were not in fact the South African All Blacks.

Please separate the issue of the tournament profit and loss, and the loss to the union from decreased income from internationals in the same year.

The point about sponsorship is exactly wrong, since RWC rules severely restrict the value of the team to their sponsors throughout the tournament.

1. the fact that they dont even know where the Blacks are from and you had a conversation about that tells you exactly how much they care and know.

You said that the average American hadn't heard of the ABs. I'm pointing out you are wrong. A lot of US manchester united fans can't point to manchester on a map either.

how has it suddenly switched to football this topic?

Is the arrogant, cynical attitude of Mr Tew typical of NZ Rugby?

The timing of this public outburst is cynically calculated to cause maximim embarrassment and force the IRB onto the back foot with a view to leveraging advantage.

So the ABs want more money (who doesn't), but in order to get it they don't mind taking it away from the IRB and in so doing harm the very sport that they supposedly revere. If they continue with such selfish policies they could very well see Rugby Union end up like American sports - only played professionally in their own country (but the up side is they can have a world series between Aukland and Canterbury).

It is obvious the low regard Mr Tew has for other countries and the global image of the game by going public with this when he has a captive media to report on how rugby is falling apart at the time of its greatest celebration. Thankfully it is obvious that he is NOT speaking for Tier 1 countries in general, as he is only threatening the withdrawal of NZ, and doesn't have the agreement of others to use as backup. I'd expect the other nations are worried about and trying to resolve the issues, without washing them in public.

Still New Zealand must be a great place to live, since there are no taxes. At least I'm assuming there are no taxes as the Government is making a loss and all that foreign income goes straight into someone's hip pocket rather than back to the exchequer.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:. Do not underestimate our pulling power in Asia and America, which is where the money is. You can say it is minimal if you want, but it is more than any other team in the world.

Chewed that is a completly false statement, The US is not a growth market for rugby, outside of a world cup US tv companies have no interest in the game and interest during the world cup depends upon the eagles. The all blacks have no impact on that.

Aisa could be a growth market but until an aisian side is able to compete well at international level it most ceryainly is not where the money is. The kids on the streets of seoul, peking, singapore, bangkok, KL, etc are wearing man utd or chelsea tops not All black jerseys walk around those cities you will not see an all black shirt unless its on a tourist and a kiwi tourist at that.

I assume tahts whyt all hollywwood movies about Rugby heavily feature the Haka and the "extra" Bledisloe matches are played in ...Asia. Japan is a huge growth market for rugby, even the Brand himslef will be playing there next year.
Looking forwards everyones moneys in China, whether they suck at rugby or not theres a huge demand for international sporting icons and brands.


Im losing track of our argument anyway, are you seriously suggesting that if NZ pulled out of the next world cup due to finanacial problems that this wouldnt negativly affect the rest of the cup and the participating Unions? If it is then frankly you are wrong.

The most successful rugby film that actually did somthing at the box office featured NZ of course, losing to the Boks.

Theres a hollywood film coming up on Gareth Thomas wont be any hakas in that.

Sorry, I adore the All blacks and watching them play but the thinking behind this statement by Tew is small, blinkered and insular with no attempt to look at the bigger picture. If they want out of global rugby just as its about to go viral in the next ten years good luck to them.

The blacks may be the most well known brand in world rugby, it is not however indispensible and Rugby will conmtinue to grow in the areas the IRB has positioned regardless of the All Blacks decision to play or not. The Boks green and gold, Englands red rose, French cockrell hell even the welsh jersey have comparable sponsership deals and history, England have made more finals that the blacks, Australia and the Boks have won the damn thing more than you. Your living in a delusional world where the All Blacks are the most successful team in teh world cup talk about blinkered and insular?

Maybe NZRFU should abandon its policy of only selecting players playing at home since its threatening to bankrupt them. They'd save millions per year by letting a French team pay McCaw and Carter's wages. Just a thought like.

[quote="TheGreyGhost"]

TycroesOsprey wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:The average American has heard of the All Blacks actually. I've spent a lot of time in the US, and regularly meet American's who know the brand but have no idea where they're from (I once spent a good hour arguing with an insistent resident of St Louis that they were not in fact the South African All Blacks.

Please separate the issue of the tournament profit and loss, and the loss to the union from decreased income from internationals in the same year.

The point about sponsorship is exactly wrong, since RWC rules severely restrict the value of the team to their sponsors throughout the tournament.

1. the fact that they dont even know where the Blacks are from and you had a conversation about that tells you exactly how much they care and know.

You said that the average American hadn't heard of the ABs. I'm pointing out you are wrong. A lot of US manchester united fans can't point to manchester on a map either.

They can certainly point to the correct country though.

Oh well, it's been decided then, the whole world of rugby will cease to exist when the All Blacks pull out of the world cup. What will we all do !!!!!!

I've actually seen a fair bit of All Black merchandise all over the world. Way more than any other rugby team actually. NZ is a tourist hotspot for Asia and wandering round the cities I've visited there and in other continents I've seen a few AB hats and jerseys worn by locals. The All Black jersey is one of the top souvenirs of a trip to NZ.

[quote="TheGreyGhost"]

TycroesOsprey wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:The average American has heard of the All Blacks actually. I've spent a lot of time in the US, and regularly meet American's who know the brand but have no idea where they're from (I once spent a good hour arguing with an insistent resident of St Louis that they were not in fact the South African All Blacks.

Please separate the issue of the tournament profit and loss, and the loss to the union from decreased income from internationals in the same year.

The point about sponsorship is exactly wrong, since RWC rules severely restrict the value of the team to their sponsors throughout the tournament.

1. the fact that they dont even know where the Blacks are from and you had a conversation about that tells you exactly how much they care and know.

You said that the average American hadn't heard of the ABs. I'm pointing out you are wrong. A lot of US manchester united fans can't point to manchester on a map either.

I was in the states for the world cup in 03 and 95 you try and find a place to watch the games, Average American has no idea nor interest in rugby. Im sure when you were in St louis telling people that you were a rugby fan and from NZ the americans with typical hospitality would try and engage you on a topic obviously close to your heart. Much like the chicago cabby who asked me if Gareth Edwards still played for wales in 95. did he know or care about the game or even the position edwards played? nope neither does the average american know or care about rugby or the all blacks.

disneychilly wrote:I've actually seen a fair bit of All Black merchandise all over the world. Way more than any other rugby team actually. NZ is a tourist hotspot for Asia and wandering round the cities I've visited there and in other continents I've seen a few AB hats and jerseys worn by locals. The All Black jersey is one of the top souvenirs of a trip to NZ.

dis, Ive been to a lot of places in Asia and have never seen a local wearing a rugby top or hat. Lots of tourists and more England jerseys than anything else espescially after 03.

Let us all be clear about a few things:

1. The only money that any rugby union (as opposed to the country itself from tourist dollars) makes out of hosting a RWC is from ticket sales - they get no money from sponsorship, advertising at grounds, TV deals etc. Money spent by tourists in the country hosting a RWC, other than ticket sales, obviously does not go to the host union.

2. All money generated from sponsorship, advertising at grounds, TV deals etc. goes to Rugby World Cup Limited (and its associated companies).

3. All costs of hosting a RWC are borne by the host union (including travel, hotel and food costs of all teams) - ticket sales less costs will result in the NZRFU losing anywhere from NZD$15m to NZD$40m, which the New Zealand government will subsidise.

4. The IRB/Rugby World Cup Limited have negligible costs and will pocket in the region of GBP150m from the 2011 RWC.

5. The NZRFU are NOT saying that they are losing NZD$13m from HOSTING the 2011 RWC - the net loss of hosting the 2011 RWC is is being guaranteed by the NZ Government as they are aware of the economic benefit to NZ in the short to medium term.

6. The NZRFU are saying that:

(a) over and above the net loss that they are incurring from hosting, which will be reimbursed to them by the NZ government, they are out of pocket an additional NZD$13m which could have been generated if the RWC had not been held in 2011, irrespective of where it is held.

(b) in 2015 the NZRFU will again have a massive shortfall of revenue as a result of not being able to generate money from sponsors, ticket sales (both from the June tests (as NH teams don't come to NZ in a RWC year) and the NH Autumn tests), TV rights and advertising.

(c) EVERY TIER 1 NATION is also losing money during a RWC year.

(d) at the football/soccer world cups the various teams are allowed access to and to promote their own sponsors for a period up to 2 days before games and that generates a large amount of revenue for those countries.

Now I accept that this is an issue particularly for NZ/Aus (and less so SA) rather than the NH sides (England/France in particular) as the revenue generated by NZ/Aus/SA from TV rights generally is far less than the NH sides generate from their TV rights deals (especially because NZ/Aus/SA DO NOT get a share of the TV rights from the Autumn tours). This means that the NH sides (and again England/France in particular) do not feel the effects of not receiving as much money in a RWC year to the same extent. This is also compounded by the fact that in NZ/Aus/SA the Unions themselves pay all players wages so any reduction in income to the national union affects all players/provinces.

To be clear, this has been a major issue for a number of years and as movement on the issue has barely progressed Steve Tew saw an opportunity to make a global statement about it while he had the world's media at his door.

Aside from the Eng/French unions, I would expect the supporters of the other Tier 1 Nations to be sympathetic to this issue as I'm sure this is a major issue for those unions as well.

One further point - the game of rugby union may be on the verge of going massively global once it becomes an Olympic sport.

Lets see how that changes things in the USA when a gold medal is up for grabs and games are over in just 14 mins and are fast and free-flowing (unlike American football).

The downside to this is that like 20/20 in cricket we might see interest/money/players start to drift away from the 15 man version, which to me would be a massive issue. And don't simply say that's not going to happen - the IRB are currently persuing the growth of 7's as their major strategy to growing the game worldwide and see it as the perfect opportunity to crack the USA TV market. I have been living in the Caribbean for the last 5 years and it is quite clear from the increased televising of rugby (and 7's in particular) in the USA that the market is definitely growing.