England Cost Wales £4m

First topic message reminder :

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.

Mystir.

""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."

It is a sign of the times mate, nothing to do with England. Money rules, and unfortunately not everyone can afford to host tests outside test windows.

The bigger reality is the SH nations are at the end of their season and fatigue does play a role, at some point the administrators at SANZAR must come to realisation that player welfare is important. So unless big money is thrown at them, they aren't going to play.

Its all well and good talking about player welfare-- but is that really truely the case- in an ideal world isnt it better to play more international games- and if teams need bigger squads or less domestic stuff due to extra games shouldnt that be the way to go!


call me paranoid- but the suggestion that its becaise NZ want to do everything they can to maintain a win record is probally the way i am looking at there decision- rather than it being due to player welfare!

Yes, it should be more tests and less domestic rgby, but it isn't happening.

Of course NZ are concerned about their win record, but to suggest the loss to england has made them change their mind about a fourt match is highly unlikely.

mystiroakey wrote:Its all well and good talking about player welfare-- but is that really truely the case- in an ideal world isnt it better to play more international games- and if teams need bigger squads or less domestic stuff due to extra games shouldnt that be the way to go!


call me paranoid- but the suggestion that its becaise NZ want to do everything they can to maintain a win record is probally the way i am looking at there decision- rather than it being due to player welfare!

The NZRU are giving up £1.5m a year by not playing the extra AI in favour of letting the players start their end of season break a week earlier. Given that they (like all the top tier nations) will be getting increased RWC appearance fees after Steve Tew's moan in 2011, and given the extra £8m a year the new AIG deal earns* then they can afford to look after player welfare. The win record this year was 12 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss, which is considerably better than long term record (~80%) anyway.


* NZRU earns ~£18m from Adidas and AIG combined, 30-40% of their overall revenue. The ABs are about the 8th most valuable sports team brand globally (The NY Yankees and Man U are up the top of the teams list)

Personally I think tests played outside the test window should not count for IRB rankings or official statistics.

Well the All Blacks would agree with that would England?

ThePantomimeVillain wrote:Personally I think tests played outside the test window should not count for IRB rankings or official statistics.

Unless NZ win.