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?

quinsforever wrote:

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.

we're not happy about it, but a guy with inside information (he works at SARU ) said things are going to change for SARU in 2016, as he said, we will have bucket loads of money.

Not sure why or how as he wasn't permitted to say, however he did say SARU will be sticking to their guns this time round. (I expect something similar to the cricket fiasco currently going on)

interesting. so you're going to be removing the commercial subsidy to NZ and AUS for S15 and 4N TV rights?

makes sense. 50m of the 55m SH rugby fans must be in SA. its a strong hand to bargain with.

I would think something like that will be on the cards, will be following it closely.

its gonna be seriously interesting whether Cruden could turn down $3m per annum for example to play in France, and whether NZ would change their selection policy...

Well Wray and his Boets are pretty determined that the future is more SA involvement in Euro rugby.


NZ have done very well the last few years in keeping their stars from coming up here. After the 07 WC there was a mass pension mission, that really hasnt happened to anywhere near the same extent with the big names after 11.
At some point though more players likely will make the same decision as Mowen. The sheer amount of constant travel for a S15/4N player is ludicrous....even more now the Aussies are trying to get extra Autumn games in. It never ceases to amaze me how they all keep going, especially with Argentina now in the mix.
SANZAR rugbys biggest hope of staying financially competitive is to tap into the Japanese and Chinese markets. Mind it doenst seem that long ago we were being warned that the Japanese league was going to poach all the top names ( like err James Haskell) and that Russian rugby was suddenly going to emerge as the dominant powerhouse. All seems to have gone a bit quiet on that hype.

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.

You gots numbers to share, mon frère?   I look askance at your supposition. Simply thinking (it is all I can muster at this point), in the NH, there are more people to attend matches and more people to watch on tv.  The economies are larger, too.  I would like to see how SANZAR will be the most powerful Rugby organisation in the world.  Frankly, we had better watch our baguettes because the most powerful Rugby nation on earth is soon to be France (unless they retreat from that position)..

Important to differentiate injury from intent and action.
Frankly a centre should never have been lingering at ruck by himself after the ball had gone. Especially with two men far bigger and stronger.

mate, you are defending the indefensible. it's pursuing avenues of argument like this that gets you your one-eyed, wum reputation GE.

watch the video.

so is lingering on the edge of the ruck justification for a two-man aggressive speak tackle, when the ball was absolutely nowhere near?

no-one is disputing NZ were miles better than the Lions. Only you are defending what video has shown to be borderline assault.

doctor_grey wrote:

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.

You gots numbers to share, mon frère?   I look askance at your supposition. Simply thinking (it is all I can muster at this point), in the NH, there are more people to attend matches and more people to watch on tv.  The economies are larger, too.  I would like to see how SANZAR will be the most powerful Rugby organisation in the world.  Frankly, we had better watch our baguettes because the most powerful Rugby nation on earth is soon to be France (unless they retreat from that position)..

i posted some numbers above doc. $440m for SANZAR vs a very, very conservative (as it excludes AIs) $1.325bn NH TV revenues, for comparable rights.

Morne Steyn was actually on the radio a day or two ago - he doesn't seem to confident about SANZAR keeping our best players... FRU seems a big juggernaut.

kingraf wrote:Morne Steyn was actually on the radio a day or two ago - he doesn't seem to confident about SANZAR keeping our best players... FRU seems a big juggernaut.

it's going to force SA to renegotiate their share of SANZAR revenue quite hard this time. International rugby is not a charity. So the top14 money is going to put pressure on lots of unexpected places.

quinsforever wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

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.

You gots numbers to share, mon frère?   I look askance at your supposition. Simply thinking (it is all I can muster at this point), in the NH, there are more people to attend matches and more people to watch on tv.  The economies are larger, too.  I would like to see how SANZAR will be the most powerful Rugby organisation in the world.  Frankly, we had better watch our baguettes because the most powerful Rugby nation on earth is soon to be France (unless they retreat from that position)..

i posted some numbers above doc. $440m for SANZAR vs a very, very conservative (as it excludes AIs) $1.325bn NH TV revenues, for comparable rights.

Quins, Almost $900 million difference. So, how does that translate to SANZAR taking over the world?

quinsforever wrote:mate, you are defending the indefensible. it's pursuing avenues of argument like this that gets you your one-eyed, wum reputation GE.

watch the video.

so is lingering on the edge of the ruck justification for a two-man aggressive speak tackle, when the ball was absolutely nowhere near?

no-one is disputing NZ were miles better than the Lions. Only you are defending what video has shown to be borderline assault.

He knows full well. He has the reputation as a wum because he is one. This time last year he was an England fan!

Guys let us leave personal issues out of the debate please.

What's personal about that Biltong. What other reason is there to join a forum pretending to support one team then remembering you're actually a Kiwi?

this is a good thread bilt, and i dont think anyone's getting too personal. but defending the BoD spear tackle is the definition of indefensible. that's all.

i've actually really enjoyed the mountains metaphors.

Wait, wait, wait.  No offense boys and girlz.   But let's forget the wumming accustations.  GE is open and up front.  And a bright guy and an incisive analyst (though not quite as much as me).  He must have been if he was an England fan last year.  How could I forget?

Then it is true.........He can truly obtain salvation!   Salvation through Rugby and the loving embrace of Her Majesty.  
All we need to do is get him that little red rose and a picture of Saint Jonny in front of which to genuflect.

This thread has been good fun.

If I was a Kiwi Id be pretty embarassed by Walsh on that tour. Imagine a ref verbally assaulting a player. If ever there was case for neutral refs.

Red nose, Doc is that a hot toddy thing? I know all Brits have wonky teeth and ruddy cheeks but not heard of the red nose one??

The NH finances are looking good and scary. We have a mountain to climb especially if SA are going to shaft us minnows as well in a couple years time. If that happened, maybe NZ and Oz would tell them to stuff it, what's the point of getting paid peanuts whilst at the same time boosting their revenue by providing them with the competition they want/need. Probably have that all wrong so hopefully biltong will explain it.

GG, I think Walsh did have a bit of a reputation in NZ as a bit of a dude well before his well documented personal issues. But it seems like he's turned his life around so good on him for that.

ps. GG, I didn't want to comment on that 'November' earlier, just didn't know how to respond. Sorry mate, it's still too soon. BOD on the other hand, much time has passed, he was speared and it was wrong. Even 'if' it wasn't the ABs initial intention to take him out, it ended out being the case and it is indefensible really.

A few thoughts.

1. While the money pouring into France sets them apart at the moment, it's still small on a global scale. (E.g it's still slightly less than the nrl in Australia).

2. If British clubs are going to compete in the short term with cash they need either central contracts or a pan British/Irish league.

3. If SA pull out of SANZAR, where are they going to generate extra cash (their season doesn't align with Europe).

4. Where does Argentina go.

5 Australia's in financial effluent again.

6. The obvious solution for NZ/Australia is the addition of franchises based in Asian cities. Franchises based on foreign players and backed by major industry. E.g a team in Hong Kong, Singapore, Seoul and Tokyo. We're still talking of minor cash here for these areas. They could buy up pacific, European, South African players as well as the odd kiwi/Australian.

7. Without access to their top players I wonder if Wales, Scotland and Ireland follow Samoa and Argentina down the rankings.

Nobody asks what bod was trying to achieve in that ruck...long after the ball was gone...perhaps there is an untold story.? If he'd been in position defensively perhaps he wouldn't have been injured and NZ wouldn't have almost scored in the corner after cutting through his vacant central defence? Was it in fact bod withe premeditated agenda?

What was BOD trying to achieve in that ruck?

I can see this going around in circles. Just to help it. If happened now both players would face bans. If the had been banned I would have accepted it. However, it's worth noting lifting in tackles wasn't uncommon at the time, and the test for intent meant many tackles that were as bad or worse went unpunished (albeit The consequences for bod were aweful). Here's some spears from union and league to keep you going. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzv_0eytE5I

ebop wrote:Red nose, Doc is that a hot toddy thing? I know all Brits have wonky teeth and ruddy cheeks but not heard of the red nose one??

The NH finances are looking good and scary. We have a mountain to climb especially if SA are going to shaft us minnows as well in a couple years time. If that happened, maybe NZ and Oz would tell them to stuff it, what's the point of getting paid peanuts whilst at the same time boosting their revenue by providing them with the competition they want/need. Probably have that all wrong so hopefully biltong will explain it.

GG, I think Walsh did have a bit of a reputation in NZ as a bit of a dude well before his well documented personal issues. But it seems like he's turned his life around so good on him for that.

ps. GG, I didn't want to comment on that 'November' earlier, just didn't know how to respond. Sorry mate, it's still too soon. BOD on the other hand, much time has passed, he was speared and it was wrong. Even 'if' it wasn't the ABs initial intention to take him out, it ended out being the case and it is indefensible really.

Ah, you are talking Red Nose Day?  Yes, in the UK it is a real day - but you must have known that.......
http://www.rednoseday.com/

I agree, the NH finances are scary and, if unchecked, the French money, and the English to a lesser extent, could soon dominate all other markets.  I think the financial imbalance between markets could destabilise Rugby if solutions are not found in the near future.  And it is the long term prospects for Rugby in which I am most interested and concerned.  We can see a microcosm of this being played out in the Euro Rugby situation.  

On the other points, I don't believe Walsh's problems contributed to his wanting to be the centre of attention on the pitch or his questionable decision making.  I have always viewed him as emotional and self-serving, and I think that is simply who he is.   To give him credit, however, it is always a very good thing when someone is able to throw off his or her personal demons, and I hope he can remoan sober.   

And the BOD incident?  Still looks to me like a deliberate and possibly premediated attempt to injure.  His teammates should have dealt with it right then and there.  Unacceptable.

But that all takes away from the mountains.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoCPuhhE6dw

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.

Asia? Manchester United will sell more shirts in the entire Asian Continent that all SANZA members shirts thats the fact of it.

I would let Lorde the new star of New Zealand do your selling after all more people know her than the All Blacks world wide......another fact ouch

ebop wrote:Red nose, Doc is that a hot toddy thing? I know all Brits have wonky teeth and ruddy cheeks but not heard of the red nose one??

The NH finances are looking good and scary. We have a mountain to climb especially if SA are going to shaft us minnows as well in a couple years time. If that happened, maybe NZ and Oz would tell them to stuff it, what's the point of getting paid peanuts whilst at the same time boosting their revenue by providing them with the competition they want/need. Probably have that all wrong so hopefully biltong will explain it.

GG, I think Walsh did have a bit of a reputation in NZ as a bit of a dude well before his well documented personal issues. But it seems like he's turned his life around so good on him for that.

ps. GG, I didn't want to comment on that 'November' earlier, just didn't know how to respond. Sorry mate, it's still too soon. BOD on the other hand, much time has passed, he was speared and it was wrong. Even 'if' it wasn't the ABs initial intention to take him out, it ended out being the case and it is indefensible really.

As opposed to Kiwis who have NO teeth by the age of 25  

Yeah rainbow, some kiwis enjoy a scrap. Although, your man Thomas takes the cake for missing teeth huh.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

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.

Asia?  Manchester United will sell more shirts in the entire Asian Continent that all SANZA members shirts thats the fact of it.

I would let Lorde the new star of New Zealand do your selling after all more people know her than the All Blacks world wide......another fact ouch

is that true rainbow? I never knew that.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

ebop wrote:Red nose, Doc is that a hot toddy thing? I know all Brits have wonky teeth and ruddy cheeks but not heard of the red nose one??

The NH finances are looking good and scary. We have a mountain to climb especially if SA are going to shaft us minnows as well in a couple years time. If that happened, maybe NZ and Oz would tell them to stuff it, what's the point of getting paid peanuts whilst at the same time boosting their revenue by providing them with the competition they want/need. Probably have that all wrong so hopefully biltong will explain it.

GG, I think Walsh did have a bit of a reputation in NZ as a bit of a dude well before his well documented personal issues. But it seems like he's turned his life around so good on him for that.

ps. GG, I didn't want to comment on that 'November' earlier, just didn't know how to respond. Sorry mate, it's still too soon. BOD on the other hand, much time has passed, he was speared and it was wrong. Even 'if' it wasn't the ABs initial intention to take him out, it ended out being the case and it is indefensible really.

As opposed to Kiwis who have NO teeth by the age of 25

Is that true Rainbow? I never knew that.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

ebop wrote:Red nose, Doc is that a hot toddy thing? I know all Brits have wonky teeth and ruddy cheeks but not heard of the red nose one??

The NH finances are looking good and scary. We have a mountain to climb especially if SA are going to shaft us minnows as well in a couple years time. If that happened, maybe NZ and Oz would tell them to stuff it, what's the point of getting paid peanuts whilst at the same time boosting their revenue by providing them with the competition they want/need. Probably have that all wrong so hopefully biltong will explain it.

GG, I think Walsh did have a bit of a reputation in NZ as a bit of a dude well before his well documented personal issues. But it seems like he's turned his life around so good on him for that.

ps. GG, I didn't want to comment on that 'November' earlier, just didn't know how to respond. Sorry mate, it's still too soon. BOD on the other hand, much time has passed, he was speared and it was wrong. Even 'if' it wasn't the ABs initial intention to take him out, it ended out being the case and it is indefensible really.

As opposed to Kiwis who have NO teeth by the age of 25

Is that true Rainbow? I never knew that.

Rainbow has exhausted his three rugby facts and has now moved back to talking about soccer. Says it all really.

ebop wrote:Yeah rainbow, some kiwis enjoy a scrap. Although, your man Thomas takes the cake for missing teeth huh.

His were knocked out, you guys just let them rot, it's disgusting.

Who's Lorde? Kieran Read?

rainbow-warrior wrote:

ebop wrote:Yeah rainbow, some kiwis enjoy a scrap. Although, your man Thomas takes the cake for missing teeth huh.

His were knocked out, you guys just let them rot, it's disgusting.

Actually it's British teeth that have a bad reputation globally.

Large parts of NZ still add fluoride to drinking water, which aids in NZ's generally good state of dental health.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Who's Lorde? Kieran Read?

Not many rugby supporters outside NZ would instantly recognise him. As I said millions more will know Lorde.

True it's the same with that orange what's his name guy and Charlotte Church. Good on Lorde though eh rainbow. As a kiwi, you'd be proud of her achievement right?

They may know who she is but I bet most won't know where she's from. Even if you say she's from New Zealand they probably won't know where that is. That goes with the territory of coming from a small largely forgotten corner of the earth but therein lies the appeal of Aotearoa to those who hail from there. Sure the odd piece of nasty work slips through the net of obscurity but on the whole we're better off being ignored by the rest of the world.

However, if you mention NZ, invariably people will say the All Blacks as an association. They might not be able to name any of the players but they will associate the brand with the country.

The All Blacks is the most widely recognised rugby brand. Along with the related silver fern logo and the Haka. That's just a marketing fact. It's the most valuable brand in rugby, and ranks fairly well across all sports. These powerful images serve SANZAR and not just New Zealand directly.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

ebop wrote:Yeah rainbow, some kiwis enjoy a scrap. Although, your man Thomas takes the cake for missing teeth huh.

His were knocked out, you guys just let them rot, it's disgusting.

Actually it's British teeth that have a bad reputation globally.

Large parts of NZ still add fluoride to drinking water, which aids in NZ's generally good state of dental health.

Who the heck is Thomas or Lorde?

Its true that Brits had a reputation for bad teeth.  For the generation older than, let's say, the age of 30 dental hygiene was not considered a priority as it is for the under 30 crowd, especially in the schools.  I haven't seen recent numbers, but I believe in the UK it is conclusive that reduction in the incidence of serious dental issues is now on par with the rest of the western world.  

Interestingly, water flouridation is controversial.  Either during, or right after the war, Flouride was proven to reduce/prevent bacteria in the mouth which cause cavities.  A direct link to improved dental health.  Many countries add flouride to the drinking water at many of their water purification or distribution networks.  The US is about 75% covered, for instance.  Most of the European continent does not have flouridated water.  The counter argument, as far as I can tell, is that people feel it is some form of mass medication, the ingested amounts are unregulated (people drink different amounts of water, so this is true, but the levels are still below negative health thresholds), impacts the environment (haven't seen anything on this, and the US environmental lobby would be all over it if true), or something else.  Luddites.  
For me, it is one of the great advances in medical history.  Ironically, it may be less needed now because of the introduction in the 1970s of flouridated toothpaste.  

This was your medical lesson for today.  Tomorrow's lesson will be how to remove polyps from your colon.
Go England.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:They may know who she is but I bet most won't know where she's from. Even if you say she's from New Zealand they probably won't know where that is. That goes with the territory of coming from a small largely forgotten corner of the earth but therein lies the appeal of Aotearoa to those who hail from there. Sure the odd piece of nasty work slips through the net of obscurity but on the whole we're better off being ignored by the rest of the world.

However, if you mention NZ, invariably people will say the All Blacks as an association.  They might not be able to name any of the players but they will associate the brand with the country.

Midnight Youth and Fat Freddie's Drop are prime examples of NZ talent that should have gone further.

Some here can jump up and down and rant all they want, fact is Rugby Union is a poorly supported game on the world stage, music is global. If Lorde was marketed by NZ (or if she wanted to do that) she would bring far more recognition to NZ than the AB's would.

Good work doc Always learn something from your posts. Thomas, he's that guy that wished he'd drunk more fluoride so that when he was punched his teeth didn't drop out so easily, eh rainbow? Fact.

No one is disputing union is largely irrelevant on a global stage but you can jump and down all you want but the All Black brand is recognised globally. Lorde is not marketed by NZ so you are admitting that your previous post was nonsensical.

Have seen Fat Freddie's Drop in NZ but also in London and Paris. They have enough following to support what they love doing. Good on Lorde for her success at the Grammy's but she is finding out that recognition has many a down side.

The reputation for bad teeth is because Californians are obsessed with cosmetic treatments whereas in the UK they are still relatively rare, even teeth whitening hasnt taken off massively. Outr teeth might look bad but they arent rotten.
Most of the UK does have fluoride in the water, and the NHS still guarantees a basic level of affordable dental care.

Britain has all kinds of reputations for things. Mostly because we have a global presence rather than been a small former colony in an obscure part of the world still largely inhabited by orcs and wizards (if your tourism propaganda is to be believed).

Going back to the subject of appropriation I notice New Zealand is claiming Hobbiton and the Shire as its own now.
One thing youll never be able to take from England is their 2013 6 nations grand slam runners up medals....aka the Captain Scott trophy (hes not actually Irish is he?)

GloriousEmpire wrote:The All Blacks is the most widely recognised rugby brand. Along with the related silver fern logo and the Haka. That's just a marketing fact. It's the most valuable brand in rugby, and ranks fairly well across all sports. These powerful images serve SANZAR and not just New Zealand directly.

yes agree with the first.

but not with the second.

who buys the Haka?

and who, apart from kiwis, buys shirts with the very forgettable black fern logo on?

top14 wins on all financial fronts. although i suspect SA rugby wins on overall attendance (but maybe not gate receipts as i suspect tickets are cheaper on avg in SA?)

anyway, unfortunately for the ABs, national team "brands" dont sell really outside their own countries.

clubs do. Like Saracens and Toulon, albeit on nowhere like the same scale as Man Utd, Liverpool, Barca, etc.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:No one is disputing union is largely irrelevant on a global stage but you can jump and down all you want but the All Black brand is recognised globally.

Only as the bad guys in Invictus and Fellowship of the Ring

Quinns Brands have value evaluated on the basis of revenue streams they generate. Nobody has to "buy a Haka" directly.

Maybe you need to read up on it. Suspect you're misunderstanding.


http://m.gbr.sagepub.com/content/11/3/421.abstract

The fact that All Blacks iconography are the most valuable brands in rugby is just a well known and widely understood fact. It's not something you can disagree with.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-06/world-cup-win-would-lift-all-blacks-brand-past-nz-100-million.html

quinsforever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:The All Blacks is the most widely recognised rugby brand. Along with the related silver fern logo and the Haka. That's just a marketing fact. It's the most valuable brand in rugby, and ranks fairly well across all sports. These powerful images serve SANZAR and not just New Zealand directly.

yes agree with the first.

but not with the second.

who buys the Haka?

and who, apart from kiwis, buys shirts with the very forgettable black fern logo on?

top14 wins on all financial fronts. although i suspect SA rugby wins on overall attendance (but maybe not gate receipts as i suspect tickets are cheaper on avg in SA?)

anyway, unfortunately for the ABs, national team "brands" dont sell really outside their own countries.

clubs do. Like Saracens and Toulon, albeit on nowhere like the same scale as Man Utd, Liverpool, Barca, etc.

It's the silver fern not the black fern. That would be forgettable as you wouldn't see it. I see plenty of AB shirts in Spain and have seen them equally in places where rugby is unknown like China or Brazil. The Springbok shirt is also quite popular. In Spain, the England union shirt is curiously quite popular. I have never seen a Spanish person wear an England football shirt. But I don't see any rugby club shirts so I find your statement difficult to take seriously.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-06/world-cup-win-would-lift-all-blacks-brand-past-nz-100-million.html

"A first Rugby World Cup title in 24 years would take the All Blacks brand value past NZ$100 million ($77 million), lifting New Zealand’s national team to the same level as top-20 European soccer clubs, according to Brand Finance Plc."

http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=27

Good to see the NZ brand is worth about half as much as Ronaldo

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:The All Blacks is the most widely recognised rugby brand. Along with the related silver fern logo and the Haka. That's just a marketing fact. It's the most valuable brand in rugby, and ranks fairly well across all sports. These powerful images serve SANZAR and not just New Zealand directly.

yes agree with the first.

but not with the second.

who buys the Haka?

and who, apart from kiwis, buys shirts with the very forgettable black fern logo on?

top14 wins on all financial fronts. although i suspect SA rugby wins on overall attendance (but maybe not gate receipts as i suspect tickets are cheaper on avg in SA?)

anyway, unfortunately for the ABs, national team "brands" dont sell really outside their own countries.

clubs do. Like Saracens and Toulon, albeit on nowhere like the same scale as Man Utd, Liverpool, Barca, etc.

It's the silver fern not the black fern. That would be forgettable as you wouldn't see it. I see plenty of AB shirts in Spain and have seen them equally in places where rugby is unknown like China or Brazil. The Springbok shirt is also quite popular. In Spain, the England union shirt is curiously quite popular. I have never seen a Spanish person wear an England football shirt. But I don't see any rugby club shirts so I find your statement difficult to take seriously.

Kiwi tourists no doubt hahaha It's odd that on my world travels I have never seen a AB shirt, hundreds of football shirts i.e. Man Utd, Liverpool, Juve, Barca etc, I mean you only get 30,000 watching you some games.