Mountains of world rugby

First topic message reminder :

Metaphors for difficult tasks are often constructed around the ascent of a mountain.
 
"Scotland have a huge mountain to climb here" for example.
 
On world rugby terms, the rugby World Cup might be likened to Everest. The highest peak in the world (popularly) and most obvious choice. (And notably first scaled by a kiwi, captain David Kirk or Edmund Hillary - take your pick). Some might even suggest the odd team who have reached the summit may have had a certain degree of assistance from the odd Sherpa or two.
 
Likewise, the Southern Hemisphere's Rugby Championship might be equated to K2. Not as popular a conquest, only open to the worlds elite mountaineers. Technically not as altitudinous at its peak, although a more difficult ascent than Everest.
 
The World Cup might also be equated with Everest in that whilst the highest peak, a large portion of the mountains height is beneath water and hence nobody actually scales its full height - an analogy for the pool stages - most summit contenders bypass the pool without any thought or much effort expended.
 
So, in mountain metaphor terms, which peak might the six nations equate to?

Yes that's true. The Irish pitches and twickenham are great.

Unfortunately England eschew their pitch by playing as though it's a mud bath anyway.

Everything changes. The 6n is not that old - the original home nations tournament is granted but it's no longer the same thing.

i agree doc.

and the financial growth in the NH is actually even more impressive.

SANZAR re-signed a 5 yr NewsCorp deal for $440m, including 4N, S15, tours down under, and Lions matches.

France just re-signed a $470m 5 year deal for their domestic league only.

the realignment in NH rugby is being forced by the dramatic growth and commercial success of the English and French leagues, and the massively different models employed in Fr, Eng, Wal, Ire, Sco. change was inevitable.

so maybe the worn down, not tectonic, NH 6N actually has a bit of volcanic activity left after all?

No hosepipe ban in Ireland, eh GG? It must be said the same applies to Twickenham. The MS and Stade de France are often woeful and patience is wearing thin each time a rugby event occurs when the spectacle is taken away by the sub-standard nature of the pitch. The events of Murrayfield last year were unusual so they can be excused and Rome has more the outrageous prices of its hotels.

Out of the interests of this thread though, I think you are making a mountain out of this molehill GE.

Granted the nh revenues are still higher, but contrast the growth of each. At the projects rates of growth, a fag packet analysis shows that SANZAR will be the most powerful (financially) organisation in world rugby by 2025

Also remember that SANZAR is a distinct entity from the NZRU, ARU and SARU. It's not apples and apples to compare the FRU to SANZAR.

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Power is shifting from the close spectator model that served the nh so well, and to the mass distributed tv audience in the SH. This is where the quality and entertainment of the games pay a premium above the crusty old "traditions" of the stodgy northern game.

If the nh unions want to keep up they will have to address the sub standard pitches and conservative game plans.

Landsdowne road, Croke parke, RDS, Thomond park and Raven Hill are always immaculate playing surfaces. No issue with Irish rugby pitches (and Croke park).

6 nations has survived over 100 years and is as popular as ever. No reason why "tradition" needs to change.

agreed. NH rugby is in a far healthier grass roots and commercial state than GE would have us believe.

I just had a look at trying to scalp some England v Wales tickets at HQ. Its completely sold out, and starting prices for resold tickets are £400. let's not underestimate the commercial power of a sold out HQ (80,000 or so?) or MS (4th AI is proof of this). audience support is alive and well.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Granted the nh revenues are still higher, but contrast the growth of each. At the projects rates of growth, a fag packet analysis shows that SANZAR will be the most powerful (financially) organisation in world rugby by 2025

Also remember that SANZAR is a distinct entity from the NZRU, ARU and SARU. It's not apples and apples to compare the FRU to SANZAR.

i'm not even adding in the FFR. the $470m is for the 14 domestic club teams in france only. Add in TV rights for 6Nations, Heineken Cup, Aviva and Rabo and i reckon you get to $1bn over 5 years comfortably.

anyway its obvious that there will be more money in NH rugby by dint of the popularity of the sports here. well done to SANZAR for successfully packaging and commercialising their sport. But i do worry slightly that their domestic games suffer. the AP and the top14 are driving growth in NH rugby. How do the saffers feel about S15 rugby replacing their massively vibrant domestic competitions at the top level? I worry that its a bit artificial. hope not, but it does concern me.

The Ireland v Italy game, traditionally the hardest sell sold out after a couple of weeks this year. There isnt a ticket in sight for any of our games. 6 nations is definitely as strong as ever.

Kia there is no hose pipe ban in Ireland but the government is currently bringing in water metering. Rainwater is harvested for use in the pitch irrigation system. The 320,000 litre tank is sufficient for approx. 7 days irrigation. Landsdowne playing surface is good because the Stadium glass design allows plenty of light in. The innovative transparent polycarbonate roof & facade design maximises daylight to the building interior, the pitch and surrounding residential/commercial properties. They also have a system of artifical light that is constantly beamed onto the pitch before matches to promote the grass to grow.

Artificial-light infected grass??????????????

The shame of it - traditions are all gone.

TV value of NH comparable to SANZAR deal (am bored and cant wait til tomorro afternoon so here are the numbers):
top14 - $470m over 5 yrs
HC (SKY or BT) - $325m over 5 years (EUR45m last year, with increases to come)
AP - $160m over 5 years
6N - $320m over 5 yrs (actual deal was £160m over 4 yrs)
Rabo - $50m over 5 yrs
Lions tour value in UK&I? no idea

=$1,325m over 5 years. In TV rights alone. Excluding attendances, sales of BOD shirts, etc, etc.

...but the rugby is still better down South

The Rabo TV revenue is set to increase by quite a bit as Sky have also bought the rights from next season in an non-exclusive deal.

http://www.joe.ie/rugby/rabodirect-pro-12/sky-snap-up-the-rights-to-rabodirect-pro12/

Yes granted, the NH is making more money *now*. But the market is largely saturated. The SH market is growing organically through asia, and the NH cannot compete in that market because the product they have is inferior and the geography and time zones are wrong. The value of the European market actually works against them here. NZ, Aus can schedule matches for asian audience, but Europe cannot move without disrupting their existing customers.

It's about growth rate not net current worth. As the SH revenues increase, and players can move to Japan and not eschew super rugby or international options, the international sides in the south become stronger and the product continues to be more saleable.

Europe need to be careful that they don't become an island.

SANZAR is producing a slick product, and it is vibrant and adaptable in ways that the NH competitions are not.

SecretFly wrote:...but the rugby is still better down South

we all like winning.

but i like my rugby, dirty, gritty, hard and tense.

certainly not pretty. rugby was never meant to be a beautiful game.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...but the rugby is still better down South

we all like winning.

but i like my rugby, dirty, gritty, hard and tense.

certainly not pretty. rugby was never meant to be a beautiful game.

Winning happens when you can do both though. Beauty and slog. If you only have the one, you're either a ballet dancer or a mud wrestler. I just keep cautioned about using money as a reference for quality....it is none.

GE you really are full of horse dung. Where is the evidence that the European product is inferior? Inferior to you maybe.

How will Sanzar improve their market share in the coming future? SA and NZ are rugby heartlands... its as near saturated at current standings.

AUS maybe yes but there is no forward trend... if anything its going backwards.

Are people in Europe going to suddenly start taking more interest in SH rugby played in the SH? Given the time issues it will be difficult. Japan maybe... but its not really a sport which has taken off. They have a tiny market share and its only kept alive through corporations financing it rather than them being profitable entities.

Quality is never the standard bearer, does sky sports still play live la liga matches i.e. real madrid, barcelona??? I bet you will find those matches are watched a tiny number of viewers compared to WBA vs. Swindon town.

The UK, FRA and IRE have a combined pop of 130-140 MM people... and its not a dominant sport in either countries, one of the majors but there is huge room for growth.

Compare that to the 80MM in Sanzar where its the no.1 sport for 55MM people and I know where I would put my money on increasing their share.... The NH.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Yes granted, the NH is making more money *now*. But the market is largely saturated. The SH market is growing organically through asia, and the NH cannot compete in that market because the product they have is inferior and the geography and time zones are wrong.  The value of the European market actually works against them here. NZ, Aus can schedule matches for asian audience, but Europe cannot move without disrupting their existing customers.

It's about growth rate not net current worth. As the SH revenues increase, and players can move to Japan and not eschew super rugby or international options, the international sides in the south become stronger and the product continues to be more saleable.

Europe need to be careful that they don't become an island.

SANZAR is producing a slick product, and it is vibrant and adaptable in ways that the NH competitions are not.

do you really believe this?

i was in Japan over new year. They have a certain genetic flaw from a rugby success point of view, and that is quite likely to limit the appeal. Success breeds success. There is money and population in Japan, just like there is in the US. But that doesnt translate to increased revenues for SANZAR. And rugby in the US has never really progressed. The money in the NFL and NBA make sure of that.

in the NH i would suggest that the new big deals struck by the AP and the top14 are exactly examples of why the NH market is not saturated and not maximised commercially. AP +50%, top14 +100%. seems rudely healthy to me.

GunsGerms wrote:GE you really are full of horse dung. Where is the evidence that the European product is inferior? Inferior to you maybe.

it's all a matter of perspective.

i wouldnt pay to watch the interminable 4N rugby championship, but i'm going to watch 2 matches of the 6N every weekend because my team are in the competition. it's not rocket science.

quinsforever wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:GE you really are full of horse dung. Where is the evidence that the European product is inferior? Inferior to you maybe.

it's all a matter of perspective.

i wouldnt pay to watch the interminable 4N rugby championship, but i'm going to watch 2 matches of the 6N every weekend because my team are in the competition. it's not rocket science.

Nope...there's nothing rocket science about that at all...........  That's all just natural feel.  You gotta interest, you're keen to watch. Natural.

quinsforever wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:GE you really are full of horse dung. Where is the evidence that the European product is inferior? Inferior to you maybe.

it's all a matter of perspective.

i wouldnt pay to watch the interminable 4N rugby championship, but i'm going to watch 2 matches of the 6N every weekend because my team are in the competition. it's not rocket science.

Sure. I actually dont think the quality of rugby or what people perceive to be quality rugby has that much of a difference anyway. It is only one of many factors. Ireland played rubbish rugby in the early 90s bit still sold out all 6 nations games.

Im not saying the 6 nations is a weak product but for many reasons the world is full of really popular products that are of way less quality than less sucessful rival products and their popularity is never affected.

agree GG. it's tribal. and its war. and while we all want to win, we all want to see a really good scrap along the way. no-one enjoys watching a whitewash (i'll make an exception for eng and ire vs wales this year )

GunsGerms wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:GE you really are full of horse dung. Where is the evidence that the European product is inferior? Inferior to you maybe.

it's all a matter of perspective.

i wouldnt pay to watch the interminable 4N rugby championship, but i'm going to watch 2 matches of the 6N every weekend because my team are in the competition. it's not rocket science.

Sure. I actually dont think the quality of rugby or what people perceive to be quality rugby has that much of a difference anyway. It is only one of many factors. Ireland played rubbish rugby in the early 90s bit still sold out all 6 nations games.

Im not saying the 6 nations is a weak product but for many reasons the world is full of really popular products that are of way less quality than less sucessful rival products.

Yes, but all these "quality ain't so important" and "I like it 'cause my team is in it" could be used for HEC too.  It's popular not necessarily because of quality levels, it's popular because "my teams are in it".   But try using those arguments in the past few months and the 'purists' try to turn the argument back to "it's all about quality".  Seems we've got a flock of folks that slide in and out of purist mode depending on the topic at hand.

The PRLs Hcup negotiations rely on meaningless buzzwords becuase they havent got a proper argument.

dont forget you boys have the luxury of seeing your club teams in the HCup EVERY year. just like your country plays in the 6N EVERY year.

and dont try to turn this thread into another euro cup one please.

The biggest mountain for England recently, which they failed to conquer, was Steve Walsh's attitude problem.

talking of mountains of world rugby, steve walsh's ego would count, no?

exactly Quins

lol - i pretty much just repeated what you said   

We English should keep repeating it !

gregortree wrote:The biggest mountain for England recently, which they failed to conquer, was Steve Walsh's attitude problem.

Controversial. Perhaps England have an attitude problem that gets them offside with referees?

Thought that was you lot with Barnes GE?

No, that's just Barnes being generally not very good.

I believe the stand off with Walsh began when he tried to keep England to just the 15 men on the pitch. Following which the RFU launched a campaign to run him out of the game. Luckily the guy's resilience and general class saw him return even stronger as probably the world's best referee.

GloriousEmpire wrote:No, that's just Barnes being generally not very good.

I believe the stand off with Walsh began when he tried to keep England to just the 15 men on the pitch. Following which the RFU launched a campaign to run him out of the game. Luckily the guy's resilience and general class saw him return even stronger as probably the world's best referee.

Alcohol abuse and verbally assaulting players (Shane Horgan on the '05 Lions tour) didnt help his cause either.

I like him as a ref though actually.

Abusing coaches and players before turning up drunk can set people back it turns out! It wasn't until the Aussies took over his training and teaching that he's made it good. And I thought the NZ ref system was supposed to be the best in the world. Sad times.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Abusing coaches and players before turning up drunk can set people back it turns out! It wasn't until the Aussies took over his training and teaching that he's made it good. And I thought the NZ ref system was supposed to be the best in the world. Sad times.

Best refs come from SA and Wales. Followed by Ireland, England France and NZ. Then Scotland, Australia then Italy.

Mind you Wales only have one IRB elite ref, Owens. He probably is the best out there though.

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Abusing coaches and players before turning up drunk can set people back it turns out! It wasn't until the Aussies took over his training and teaching that he's made it good. And I thought the NZ ref system was supposed to be the best in the world. Sad times.

Best refs come from SA and Wales. Followed by Ireland, England France and NZ. Then Scotland, Australia then Italy.

Mind you Wales only have one IRB elite ref, Owens. He probably is the best out there though.

agreed  

Thirded.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

gregortree wrote:The biggest mountain for England recently, which they failed to conquer, was Steve Walsh's attitude problem.

Controversial. Perhaps England have an attitude problem that gets them offside with referees?

Lack of adequate precision from England. Tom Youngs got pinged for setting up 2 inches away from the correct spot selecetd by Walsh.

Here is The Mountain


https://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/pages/Mountain/71180759736

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:No, that's just Barnes being generally not very good.

I believe the stand off with Walsh began when he tried to keep England to just the 15 men on the pitch. Following which the RFU launched a campaign to run him out of the game. Luckily the guy's resilience and general class saw him return even stronger as probably the world's best referee.

Alcohol abuse and verbally assaulting players (Shane Horgan on the '05 Lions tour) didnt help his cause either.

I like him as a ref though actually.

As I recall it Walsh rightly got tired of lions players trying to referee the game and he told him to shut up. If I was being hounded and persecuted by the RFU as constantly as Walsh was I would probably be driven to drink as well.

However making fun of someone with a serious medical issue, such as alcoholism is a childish, cowardly and reprehensible thing to do. Would you be attacking someone in a wheelchair or with a "stress related disorder" too? Shameful.

Congratulations to Walsh for his triumph in his own personal struggle and his elevation to one of the worlds best referees. Owens isn't bad, but unfortunately Joubert seems too keen to please the paymasters with fickle performances as we saw at twickenham. All too keen to appease the wealthy unions with his flexible application of laws as he sees fit to apparently suit the preferred illegalities of his chosen benefactor.

 ha ha ha ha ha

GloriousEmpire wrote:

As I recall it Walsh rightly got tired of lions players trying to referee the game and he told him to shut up. If I was being hounded and persecuted by the RFU as constantly as Walsh was I would probably be driven to drink as well.

Walsh got a four month ban for his verbal assault on Horgan during the Lions tour. It is a complete embarassment that a referee acted in this way. Yes Horgan questioned a decision which may not be the right thing to do but in no way abused Walsh.

Walsh actually was involved with two incidents with Horgan on that tour. His behaviour was a disgrace. Disgraceful behaviour was a theme for a few Kiwis on that tour yet Walsh was expected to be neutral as a professional referee.

GloriousEmpire wrote:
However making fun of someone with a serious medical issue, such as alcoholism is a childish, cowardly and reprehensible thing to do. Would you be attacking someone in a wheelchair or with a "stress related disorder" too? Shameful.

Who is making fun of him? feel free to return to planet earth Walter Mitty.

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Congratulations to Walsh for his triumph in his own personal struggle and his elevation to one of the worlds best referees. Owens isn't bad, but unfortunately Joubert seems too keen to please the paymasters with fickle performances as we saw at twickenham. All too keen to appease the wealthy unions with his flexible application of laws as he sees fit to apparently suit the preferred illegalities of his chosen benefactor.

Yes well done to Walsh for turing things around. He is a decent ref afterall.

"Walsh actually was involved with two incidents with Horgan on that tour. His behaviour was a disgrace. Disgraceful behaviour was a theme for a few Kiwis on that tour yet Walsh was expected to be neutral as a professional referee."

I think the most disgraceful behaviour came from SCW and dodgy dossier Campbell as he tried to bring rugby into the same disrepute he brought to politics with his disgraceful attack on All Blacks legend and captain, Tana Umaga.

Luckily the sublime rugby the All Blacks played well and truly shut the door on the kind of media driven scum sucking frenzy that the pair true to sully the tour with when they realised just how outclassed they were!

If I was a Kiwi I would be fairly embarassed looking back on that tour even if it was an easy win. Walsh, Umaga and Mealamu let the nation down. As for the Kiwi press and public. Embarassing!!

You rewrite history as you see fit to hide your shame.

I just recall "the best prepared rugby test team in history" with a cast of thousands utterly humbled by little old NZ. Four times in a row.

The Maori game was my absolute favourite. The lions at least managed to make a game of that one. And afterwards we got to sit back and watch the lions management committee ping pong the blame between the mid-week or test side. Absolute brilliant.

Oh god - not here again

That whole tour should be scrapped from the history books and never spoken of again

Both sides let them selves down and really should both have sat in a corner to think about what they did

Only saving grace I was over for it, and it was a fantastic three weeks visiting the country   

And if you REALLY want to see if it was or was not a spear tackle - see the actual clip at 1.30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXJyDHFKn0

GloriousEmpire wrote:"Walsh actually was involved with two incidents with Horgan on that tour. His behaviour was a disgrace. Disgraceful behaviour was a theme for a few Kiwis on that tour yet Walsh was expected to be neutral as a professional referee."

I think the most disgraceful behaviour came from SCW and dodgy dossier Campbell as he tried to bring rugby into the same disrepute he brought to politics with his disgraceful attack on All Blacks legend and captain, Tana Umaga.

Luckily the sublime rugby the All Blacks played well and truly shut the door on the kind of media driven scum sucking frenzy that the pair true to sully the tour with when they realised just how outclassed they were!

i think Umaga was doing his own level best to sully his own reputation with everyone apart from the one-eyed.

both those players should have received 26 week bans for that. if the exact same thing happened today, that would be guaranteed.

so remind me, what did Campbell do? i dont remember him spear-tackling anyone?

compare it to Evans recent 12 week ban, add in the seriousness of the injury received, and come up with your own number.

but lets be fair there was nothing surprising about this at all. classic cynicism at work. the lack of punishment was clearly surprising, but maybe not given the game was in NZ.

with or without BOD the Lions were going to get mullered on that tour.

which makes it even more criminal that those two nasty thugs took out BOD. dangerous, cynical, unnecessary, and dumb!

He we go again, GE making mountains out of molehills