England Cost Wales £4m

Just read in the Rugby Paper that England's victory over the All Blacks will cost Wales an estimated £4m as NZ have now decided to cancel their fourth fixture for next seasons AI's and in the future will only play the required three autumn games.

Due to a new sponsorship deal the AB's have now decided that they do not need the money brought in by the bolted on fourth fixture and will be putting their players first by reducing the number of games that they have to play.

Well done NZ.

I think you can blame NZ for that...

Anyway i am very shocked that they feel stable enough to not play the extra game!!

last year they were supposedly so bankrupt they couldnt play in the 2015 RWC!!!
Dont get me wrong- i love NZ's rugby but the things thenNZRU come up with crack me up!

Perhaps Wales can book another opponent.

I can't see how England or NZ should be blamed

well NZ have pulled out- so there isnt anyone else to blame bar them.. but yes wales could potentially look for another opponent- however who else could they play at short notice!!

rugby isnt chock full of high quality teams that can book games at the drop of a hat

Wouldn't this present a good chance to get another PI team over for the 4th fixture.

I'm not sure of the economics of it, but after the criticism from PI nations that they don't have enough exposure this could be a great opportunity for them to play an extra NH fixture?


EDIT: not necessarily against Wales par se, but against a NH side. I'd think for NZ that England/Wales/France would prove the best test for them, and cycle each 6N team in/out over successive years - giving a PI team another game a year against a 6N country.

This makes no sense, but even if it did, the WRU would only spend an additional £4m of revenue on magic beans, 60ft posters of Henson and corporate hospitality for Barclays, so nobody would care anyway.

Im sure Wales can find another team to play. Since they pay a lot for the 3Ns sides to play at the millenium, i'm sure that they can get Argentina/Aus/SA to play them.

Who are they playing next Autumn?

mystiroakey wrote:I think you can blame NZ for that...

Anyway i am very shocked that they feel stable enough to not play the extra game!!

last year they were supposedly so bankrupt they couldnt play in the 2015 RWC!!!
Dont get me wrong- i love NZ's rugby but the things thenNZRU come up with crack me up!

It's unfortunate that the world cup affects the SH nations economically to a greater extent than their northern neighbors. The current timing provides the balances optimal preparation for NH teams whilst minimizing the economic impact on the north. The AB's international and national competitions are more impacted that any of the NH nations. As well as losing the revenue from a summer tour, they also faced a shortened tri nations. The NPC which normally comes to a finish in October was much more heavily affected than it's northern equivalents. Imagine a tournament i that starts in March/April. The southern hemisphere teams don't tour in autumn, go into camp and build up for the tournament. Meanwhile, the 6 nations only plays 3 rounds this year. As well the Aviva finishes in march, prior to the tournament, - minus it's top stars in the finals.

well thats life black, its the way of the world.. No reason why the southern hemispere cant promote and extend there rugby range if they want to..

However I dont wanna hear the the NZRU begging the IRB for anymore finicial treatment after dropping games..

I think the new sponsorship deal is worth about £20m so I can't imagine the NZRFU are.too out of pocket!

Think you guys are being a bit harsh on the kiwis, though I think to save them, and the wallabies, they could drop the 3rd bledisloe cup game, that is purely a money earner, away from Oz and NZ, that could save them the extra game and fit in a 4th in NH?

mystiroakey wrote:well thats life black, its the way of the world.. No reason why the southern hemispere cant promote and extend there rugby range if they want to..

However I dont wanna hear the the NZRU begging the IRB for anymore finicial treatment after dropping games..

They aren't dropping games. They just aren't playing an additional game, outside the international window that Wales has asked them to play over and above their international commitments. I'm guessing they'd reconsider if they got a payout anywhere the amount of money the Welsh union would make out of the game.

Whatever the ins and outs the point surely is player welfare comes first,there are too many Test matches played.NZ after the Earthquake expected tomake a loss on hosting the RWC.There bid was backed by the NZ Government in fact the RWC actually made a profit.
All be itnot as muchas if it was held in Europe,frankly it is time the old pals act of RWC hosting was now World wide.Japan 2019 is the way to go, maybe Argentina,USA,Italy to follow.
The AIG cash tho a thing I think is sacrilege on an AllBlack shirt is an economic reality.The cash will mean less Test funds required,less matches like the 3rd Bledisloe match.
It is being invested in things like Womans rugby,7`s,a NZ A side[Juniors /Maori]
etc.
Wales may have lost the extra game this year probably because the 2013 schedule was made pre the deal.In fact it could have been ANY of the NH Countries incidentally did`nt the Boks only play 3 this year.

So, because England beat the All Blacks. It will cost Wales 4 million pound.

Ermmmm so is this down to the one game to many in a long season?

I do agree that player welfare is paramount. But surely if the games have been agreed between countrys then it is up to the Country ( NZ) for instance to ensure that their best players are(well rested) before any tournament begin.

I still fail to see how England can blamed for costing Wales 4 million pound. Just because they (England) beat the All Blacks.

New zealand I suppose need to look at the squad game.... rather than worrying about winning every game.. look at spain. Dont care about winning friendlies do they.. all about trying new players and stuff out..

mystiroakey wrote:well NZ have pulled out- so there isnt anyone else to blame bar them.. but yes wales could potentially look for another opponent- however who else could they play at short notice!!

rugby isnt chock full of high quality teams that can book games at the drop of a hat

They haven't "pulled out", they've decided not to play an extra fixture, that's not the same thing.

The Maori toured this time too though, perhaps Wales could temp them to play a fixture next year?

Well did they decide to play it before the loss v england or not?

mystiroakey wrote:Well did they decide to play it before the loss v england or not?

Why is the loss to England relevant?

mystiroakey wrote:Well did they decide to play it before the loss v england or not?

I do believe that some one did say, that this loss could be put down to the very last game of a long season.
IE, one game too many.

It's nothing to do with the England game is it. They just don't want the extra game anymore (one they don't have to play). Be lovely if the fat cats in the WRU adopted the same attitude, but if it is the All Blacks game we have lost, then there's going to be an extra game for us for sure, as that's our biggest gate gone.

I'd rather see Wales drop the fourth fixture as well. There is far too much rugby played at the top level and one less match wouldn't be a bad thing

Risca Rev wrote:It's nothing to do with the England game is it. They just don't want the extra game anymore (one they don't have to play). Be lovely if the fat cats in the WRU adopted the same attitude, but if it is the All Blacks game we have lost, then there's going to be an extra game for us for sure, as that's our biggest gate gone.

We can still play the All Blacks, just not as the fourth fixture - is it the fourth fixture next year and they have cancelled it? If it was a confirmed fixture for next year are they allowed to cancel it? Or are the saying they won't do it again after next year? Are the 2013 autumn schedules out?

There doesn't seem to me much explanation here.

We didn't play the ABs in the fourth fixture this year, so I don't see why we can't play them in the 2nd or 3rd and then play Aus or SA in the 4th fixture as they have always been willing to throw in an extra game to make some money (Aus after the WC, SA before the NZ tour a couple of years go)

I am not sure SARU wants a fourth fixture anymore

I hear Argentina or Samoa may be available.

There is a lot of misinformation going on here the schedule for 2013 is already been arranged.
Mysti please define the term "Friendlies" in the AllBlack lexicon there is no such thing.A Test match is just that,use a squad system ?they have been rotating players all season.Not bother if they WIN the day that happens I cease supporting them i.e. NEVER.
This season they`ve played 14 games,won 12 and drawn one,only Italy could be remotely described as a friendly.THAT would be discourteous to Italy to describe it as that.
There preparation at various times during the season mean`t apart from injuries of players[relatively light] or carrying injuries [again light]
A disciplinary Benching for the 1st Bok test of Aron Smith,the Death of Hansens father and Mealamu`s 100th test.[3rd Bledisloe]
Disruptive influence of Hore and Thomson`s bans.
The striving for records probably increased the mental if not physical performance at times of players.
It is a fact that ALL SH and presumably NH sides play nearly twice as many tests a year now.
In the SH also the expansion of Super Rugby and sandwiching Test Matches in between does`nt help .
In 2009 the Boks swept all before them losing a couple of tests out of 9 then the disaster of the AI Tour from Hell .THEY admitted they were over tired this year both Aus and Sa have been reduced to shadow squads due to thematch schedules.
What NZ have done is a step in the right direction others SHOULD follow the idea
of BOKS or ALL BLACKS fielding deliberately weakened sides and not caring about results?
Yes it has happened in the past weaker sides toured in RWC year BUT those sides still played to win.
England 2003 beat NZ side without 21 first choice squad members by 2 points at Twickenham and that could have been won by better goal kicking.
Sooner or later the bean counters will work out it is THE players who earn them there money.
That extra games MAY mean defeat because of injured or players not released by clubs.
IF you don`t care if you win or lose why bother to play the game?

Don't see how this necessarily affects Wales. In future they can just book the NZ games prior to the final fixture (we didn't even play them outside the IRB window this year). There'll still be options for a fourth game if the WRU insist on sticking to the current four-game model.

Do we really need the extra fixture in the Autumn? It doesnt help our regions in Europe and to be honest we are flogging the players.

The one good thing about Wales' slump under Howley is our Lions representation may be down and some of the senior players can get a real summer off and a proper pre season.

Biltong wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Well did they decide to play it before the loss v england or not?

Why is the loss to England relevant?

biltong i doint know- this is what this thread is all about...!! ask the op

6N still to come though TO. Wales could have a blinder. Can England prove that they did more than catch NZ on an off day? We're France as impressive as they looked against Oz? To me Wales haven't brow poor team in th space of 6 months and with players returning fom injury they could be genuine dark horses to back up their grandslam with a repeat performance and prove that the luck of the bounce they seemed to be favoured by last year was luck they made for themselves.

"Mysti please define the term "Friendlies" in the AllBlack lexicon there is no such thing"

Thats the thing isnt it. You know that the all blacks are all about wins(in any game).. For other nations it may be more about tourny wins.

This is certainly the case in other sports...

The timing of this cancelation of the 4th fixture sounds abit like the kiwis would rather keep a winning record over more match practise(now i dont know if that is the case- but it is being implied by the op...!!)

If that is close to the truth its not productive IMO..

The all black legacy does come back to haunt doesn't it? It's unthinkable to imagine fielding a B team or a side that they don't genuinely believe can win. Henry copped a lot of Gip for just over-rotating. But in terms of building depth NZ should consider possibly touring an A side along side the ABs or ramping up Maori touring. Frankly the AIG sponsorship deal puts a spanner in those plans because all sponsored NZ teams need to be appropriately branded as the "all blacks". Perhaps with giving way to corporate sponsors NZ might need to introduce some pragmatism to the first team intent?

Mysti the implication the poster is drawing from the All Blacks decisions was because England gained a record victory.Another the defeat was a case of one match too many.
Both Hansen,McCaw and myself acknowledged England on the day were by far the better team and won well.
BUT in the preperation to the match the whole team suffered a debilatating illness.There first choice hooker suspended,3 players unable to train and last minute fitness tests.Carter,Mealamu,and Woodcock ,others including Crudon and Barrett were doubtful.
You don`t fly a player half way around the world on standby for a match for nothing.
Those are factors,not excuses and it is a compliment to England that even players not 100% match fit wanted to play even if unable to train.
HAD the All Blacks used less involved players likeBen Smith,Ali Williams,Hosea Gear,Coles,Elliott,Tom Taylor,Weepu,Thomson and suffered that huge defeat.
They would have been accussed of disrespect fielding a B squad,media world wide would have had even more of a field day.
This year is the first Maori were able to tour,finance meant Juniors/Maori could`nt be fielded.
This year the Nz juniors and Women faced defeat something very rare,the 7`s squad was`nt as strong as usual etc.
For a NZ side at ANY level the WIN is vital from schoolboys up wish it was over here too.
I hope the 3rd Bledisloe is dumped frankly 4 NZv Aus matches a year palled as in 2009/10.
THEN you can have your traditional 4 match AI`s again myself can`t wait for the NZ v England 2013 match and the R eckoning

[quote="TycroesOsprey"]Do we really need the extra fixture in the Autumn? It doesnt help our regions in Europe and to be honest we are flogging the players.

Completely agree with you.

The point that is missed is that nz would not have picked up the fourth fixture next year even if they had walloped England.

It's all about AIG, so to use it as a chance to bait the English is a bit of a tough call.

oh god, get ready for madge talking about how England mentally damaged NZ and using this decision to drop a game as some round about FACT!.

viewtothegym wrote: oh god, get ready for madge talking about how England mentally damaged NZ and using this decision to drop a game as some round about FACT!.

View, it was not me that first mentioned this. If you read the post op.

Or did you just read my thread and no one elses.

But if you know best then please explain to me, (How England have cost Wales) 4 million pounds?

I think some perspective needs to be added to this story. The article was written by Peter Jackson, who pens the Welsh column in TRP. Therefore it could be argued that he is stirring the (another reason to hate England) pot.

This is all to do with the AIG cash allowing NZ to look primarily at player welfare according to NZRFU chief exec, Steve Tew. A decision welcomed by Steve Hansen and, no doubt, the players.

NZ also turned down an invitation to play the Baa Baas after next years tour.

It really didn't matter who NZ played in that 4th test, or whether they won or lost it.

Next years AIs within the international window have already been agreed. So all we are talking about is NZ declining a game outside the window, which they are entitled to do.

Had that invitation come from Scotland rather than Wales, then Peter Jackson would not be so worked up about it.

I can't work out where this figure of £4 million has come from. If you go back to this year's November Internationals there was already cost implications for the Northern hemisphere teams because of the price hikes introduced by SANZAR for the involvement of their teams outside the Test window. Read the October article from The Rugby Paper for more details:

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/featured-post/4638/all-blacks-get-1-5m-fee-to-face-england/

Significant quotes from the article seem to me that the likelihood of anyone playing major teams outside the Test window in 2013 is slight:

“Only two countries can afford to pay that kind of money (£1.5m appearance fee) on the basis of a full stadium – England and Wales.

"Not surprisingly, England and Wales are the only countries playing the extra fourth match (in 2012). By staying within the window, France, Scotland, Italy and Ireland have opted out of stumping up £1.5m"

"England, able to raise more than £4m in ticket revenue alone from selling all 82,000 seats at Twickenham, will still make a handsome profit, Wales less so if only because they do not have the same corporate hospitality facilities. The price hike has already prompted fears for future matches outside the Test window."

From that last quote alone, it can be deduced that the likelihood of it 'costing' Wales £4m is nonsense.

Good post Ruggerboy, kinda moots the subject doesn't it?

It does indeed Biltong.

As an aside, a direct question to you as a South African if you don't mind. That second quote; regarding France, Scotland, Italy and Ireland opting out of the fourth international; was a direct reference to a match against the Springboks as the third member of the SANZAR agreement.

My question is, did you feel short changed at the lack of such a match or did you feel it was probably in the best interest of the Springbok players not to play after such a long season?

I ask because, like a lot of posters on here, I feel there is the danger of too much international rugby being played and I really did believe that the final game against Australia was a game too far for Wales, (and that was BEFORE the result)!

I didn't mind at all not playing the fourth match.

As you say player welfare is in short supply these days, however the sad thing is the management of players is working the wrong way round in my opinion.

Test rugby is the money maker, hence tests should not be compromised but rather club/regional rugby.

The other problem you now have is due to the international window being so short in November teams won't get to challenge for a grandslam unless they play a test outside the test window.

SA from memory has only had a crack at it twice since their re introduction.

It seems the post was the usual Wales versus England swipe,how would the NH
feel if the Big 3.Decided right you consider the AI`s as Friendlies the results don`t matter[UNLESS the NH win].
We have thru sponsership secured our finances we don`t need the AI`s which you consider friendlies so we will cancel them.Have an incoming Tour at some point thru the season.Extend the 4Ns which DOES mean something and just send A teams or Weak B sides for the odd match for cash.
Eventually and it will come if the bean counters have there way you will have second and third squads playing each other the way they are flogging players.
The traditional Grandslam would require 5 Tests and include France no SH side want`s that at the end of a hard season,I agree Biltong it should start at Club/Super level but instead they expand that too.
As an aside the Top 14 is getting ridiculous every time I view Planet Rugby they have signed another star player,not so much a French side as a Barbarians one.
I am minded of a friend of my mine Soccer mad an Arsenal fan bragging about going thru a year unbeaten,I asked him how many England Players.
Answer " None of Those!!!!"

Thanks for the reply Biltong and, as always, it has given me more food for thought about this game of ours.

Thoughts about wage capping, central contracts, club versus Country etc etc..

But that will be for a different thread!

emack - be fair, it was one (imo misguided) poster who mentioned the word 'friendlies'. Just about everyone I know view the AIs against Aus, NZ and SA as full on tests. More so this year, with the RWC seedings at stake.

A few may think of these games as friendlies because there is no trophy at stake; leaving aside from the trophies that two particular teams may be playing for.

Has anybody worked our how much the Changelang brothers cost Welsh rugby in the early days of the Celtic League?

Malcolm and David, two of the finest referees to grace the game those Changelang boys ... hang on, I haven't taken my medication this morning!

Biltong wrote:Good post Ruggerboy, kinda moots the subject doesn't it?

I doubt anyone belived it would cost wales exactly 4 million quid.. Numbers are thrown about with no knowledge and are never close to the truth- in this case it may have cost wales 4 million in revenue!!- possibly more like 3.5- and with that a profit of about 1 million..

Anyway the fact is it doesnt matter if its 4 mill or 1 mill- the point still stands..

If there is a point!!- anyway the fact is wales will be down a few quid if they do not play NZ....- the amount is guesswork at the moment