No more Tests for NZ

by broadlandboy Wed 16 Mar 2016, 12:25 pm

After 2019 http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11606622

by Geordie Wed 16 Mar 2016, 12:54 pm

Wont happen as the clubs in the NH are becoming more powerful and will refuse to change the seasons.

by LordDowlais Wed 16 Mar 2016, 12:57 pm

Who in the hell do they think they are, instead of grizzling to the world, change the structure of the SH season to align with the NH season, after all the £££££'s are in the NH.

by HammerofThunor Wed 16 Mar 2016, 12:59 pm

I agree that the profit should be split, but I would ban teams from requesting additional payouts. This will assist those that can't get home games or certainly make much money from home games.

I hope it's not an idle threat.

by HammerofThunor Wed 16 Mar 2016, 1:01 pm

LordDowlais wrote:Who in the hell do they think they are, instead of grizzling to the world, change the structure of the SH season to align with the NH season, after all the £££££'s are in the NH.

All they're doing is refusing to schedule tests. This will kill the professional game there as they make most of their money through the All Blacks. I guessing they think they're a union in desperation. Note, they're aren't doing anything to threaten anyone else (other than potentially Australia).

by LordDowlais Wed 16 Mar 2016, 1:01 pm

Well they would lose a hell of a lot more if they played NO international matches, let them do it, let's see how far they get. New Zealand rugby would die a quick death if it were not for the money generated by playing the NH sides.

by HammerofThunor Wed 16 Mar 2016, 1:08 pm

Yes they would. Teams also make a lot of money from people wanted to watch their team play the All Blacks. What appears to be happening is that they are unable to support the pro game in New Zealand to the level required to compete with other major nations under the current system. so they're effectively threatening to comment suicide over it.

But does anyone think that the proceeds of games shouldn't be split between the teams? There were a significant number of comments outraged by the PRL selling their European rights to BT as it requires two teams to play, etc. But that is the system in rugby and Frak over plenty of international teams, primarily the tier 2 nations.

It would require World Rugby to dictate tours and the entire international schedule as it would be a further disincentive to tour nations that don't generate much at home games. So nations like England who generate a lot of home income would lose a portion of this and not gain it by playing Argentina or Samoa.

by Knowsit17 Wed 16 Mar 2016, 1:12 pm

A statement of frustration at the continuous failure of WR to address an issue which has been on the radar for a good 5-10 years now.

by LordDowlais Wed 16 Mar 2016, 1:16 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Yes they would. Teams also make a lot of money from people wanted to watch their team play the All Blacks. What appears to be happening is that they are unable to support the pro game in New Zealand to the level required to compete with other major nations under the current system. so they're effectively threatening to comment suicide over it.

They cannot compete, yet they have been the number one ranked team in the world since 2003.

HammerofThunor wrote:But does anyone think that the proceeds of games shouldn't be split between the teams? There were a significant number of comments outraged by the PRL selling their European rights to BT as it requires two teams to play, etc. But that is the system in rugby and Frak over plenty of international teams, primarily the tier 2 nations.

Perhaps the PROFITS could be split, after all the payments to actually make the game happen, but again, if we could get the same when playing in their country it would be fine, but playing a test in New Zealand does not generate the same income as it does when playing in the UK, Ireland or France.

HammerofThunor wrote:It would require World Rugby to dictate tours and the entire international schedule as it would be a further disincentive to tour nations that don't generate much at home games. So nations like England who generate a lot of home income would lose a portion of this and not gain it by playing Argentina or Samoa.

World rugby ARE dictating tours aren't they ? They have also made a rule where the NH countries are not allowed to send "development teams" on tour.

by bedfordwelsh Wed 16 Mar 2016, 1:20 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:Yes they would. Teams also make a lot of money from people wanted to watch their team play the All Blacks. What appears to be happening is that they are unable to support the pro game in New Zealand to the level required to compete with other major nations under the current system. so they're effectively threatening to comment suicide over it.

They cannot compete, yet they have been the number one ranked team in the world since 2003.

HammerofThunor wrote:But does anyone think that the proceeds of games shouldn't be split between the teams? There were a significant number of comments outraged by the PRL selling their European rights to BT as it requires two teams to play, etc. But that is the system in rugby and Frak over plenty of international teams, primarily the tier 2 nations.

Perhaps the PROFITS could be split, after all the payments to actually make the game happen, but again, if we could get the same when playing in their country it would be fine, but playing a test in New Zealand does not generate the same income as it does when playing in the UK, Ireland or France.

HammerofThunor wrote:It would require World Rugby to dictate tours and the entire international schedule as it would be a further disincentive to tour nations that don't generate much at home games. So nations like England who generate a lot of home income would lose a portion of this and not gain it by playing Argentina or Samoa.

World rugby ARE dictating tours aren't they ? They have also made a rule where the NH countries are not allowed to send "development teams" on tour.

Except in Lions years I think isn't it?

by LordDowlais Wed 16 Mar 2016, 1:24 pm

bedfordwelsh wrote:Except in Lions years I think isn't it?

Yes that is right.

by Hazel Sapling Wed 16 Mar 2016, 1:29 pm

New Zealand are not banning tests, simply not taking reservations. Their players would have no incentive to stay in New Zealand except during World Cup years if they did that.

The season has been messed up for a while. 6 nations is in an awkward place. November is terrible for the northern domestic season as it further breaks the season and June for the Super rugby nations is the same.

As for the splitting of money, I am all for 70-30 split in favour of the home team. If World Rugby picks teams who face one another, more needs to be done to bring in Georgia/Romania/Russia vomit

/Japan/Samoa/US/Canada/Uruguay/Spain/Portugal. A test a year for them would be big.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 16 Mar 2016, 2:13 pm

LordDowlais wrote:Who in the hell do they think they are, instead of grizzling to the world, change the structure of the SH season to align with the NH season, after all the £££££'s are in the NH.

Probably the country that contributes more to Rugby than any other Nation on the planet.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 16 Mar 2016, 2:16 pm

It just sounds like NZ are saying "Can we please sort this out?". Since all other parties want things sorted out too, then maybe this is a good way to bring everyone to the table.

by LordDowlais Wed 16 Mar 2016, 2:19 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:Who in the hell do they think they are, instead of grizzling to the world, change the structure of the SH season to align with the NH season, after all the £££££'s are in the NH.

Probably the country that contributes more to Rugby than any other Nation on the planet.

If I were you I would stop absorbing yourself in your self importance. Yes New Zealand are the best, but they do not contribute any more than any other country does, without the TV deals of the NH, and the money generated by the NH, New Zealand rugby would still be amateur. Also, super rugby would be screwed without South Africa, so I would take that comment back if I were you.

by BamBam Wed 16 Mar 2016, 2:21 pm

Good old LD, overlooking the fact that NZ rugby owns the biggest brand in the game

I'm sure all of the other countries would be delighted to lose the income that they earn from hosting the All Blacks

by aucklandlaurie Wed 16 Mar 2016, 2:27 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:Who in the hell do they think they are, instead of grizzling to the world, change the structure of the SH season to align with the NH season, after all the £££££'s are in the NH.

Probably the country that contributes more to Rugby than any other Nation on the planet.

If I were you I would stop absorbing yourself in your self importance. Yes New Zealand are the best, but they do not contribute any more than any other country does, without the TV deals of the NH, and the money generated by the NH, New Zealand rugby would still be amateur. Also, super rugby would be screwed without South Africa, so I would take that comment back if I were you.

I didnt mean, let alone say whether we are the best or not., its more about the advances in the game both on and off the field, sure succes comes with that, but if New Zealand didnt contribute more than everyone else we wouldnt even be talking about it.

I decline your invitation to withdraw.

by LordDowlais Wed 16 Mar 2016, 2:43 pm

BamBam wrote:Good old LD, overlooking the fact that NZ rugby owns the biggest brand in the game

I'm sure all of the other countries would be delighted to lose the income that they earn from hosting the All Blacks

I am not overlooking anything. What I am saying is NZ losing everybody else, is worst than everybody else losing NZ.

I think that is the right way of putting it. Smile

by aucklandlaurie Wed 16 Mar 2016, 2:49 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
BamBam wrote:Good old LD, overlooking the fact that NZ rugby owns the biggest brand in the game

I'm sure all of the other countries would be delighted to lose the income that they earn from hosting the All Blacks

I am not overlooking anything. What I am saying is NZ losing everybody else, is worst than everybody else losing NZ.

I think that is the right way of putting it.

No. that's not the right way of putting it, there's no such word as "worst".

by Exiledinborders Wed 16 Mar 2016, 2:53 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
BamBam wrote:Good old LD, overlooking the fact that NZ rugby owns the biggest brand in the game

I'm sure all of the other countries would be delighted to lose the income that they earn from hosting the All Blacks

I am not overlooking anything. What I am saying is NZ losing everybody else, is worst than everybody else losing NZ.

I think that is the right way of putting it.

That is right. A team like England would lose a test a year on average but could easily replace it with one against South Africa, Australia or Argentina and sell out Twickenham and the TV rights. New Zealand would of course go bust and their players just leave for France.

Why do the NH teams not just call their bluff?

by Hazel Sapling Wed 16 Mar 2016, 2:56 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
BamBam wrote:Good old LD, overlooking the fact that NZ rugby owns the biggest brand in the game

I'm sure all of the other countries would be delighted to lose the income that they earn from hosting the All Blacks

I am not overlooking anything. What I am saying is NZ losing everybody else, is worst than everybody else losing NZ.

I think that is the right way of putting it.

No. that's not the right way of putting it, there's no such word as "worst".

Personally I ignore this kind of conversation because they go nowhere. I do believe however there is a word called worst. As in the worst rugby team in the world at the moment is American Samoa. Incorrectly used in this case. It should be worse.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 16 Mar 2016, 2:59 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
BamBam wrote:Good old LD, overlooking the fact that NZ rugby owns the biggest brand in the game

I'm sure all of the other countries would be delighted to lose the income that they earn from hosting the All Blacks

I am not overlooking anything. What I am saying is NZ losing everybody else, is worst than everybody else losing NZ.

I think that is the right way of putting it.
That is right. A team like England would lose a test a year on average but could easily replace it with one against South Africa, Australia or Argentina and sell out Twickenham and the TV rights. New Zealand would of course go bust and their players just leave for France.

Why do the NH teams not just call their bluff?

Plus countries like England would gain the added advantage of jumping up one place in the World rankings.

by LordDowlais Wed 16 Mar 2016, 3:00 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:Why do the NH teams not just call their bluff?

Exactly.

by SecretFly Wed 16 Mar 2016, 3:01 pm

It's the Them v Us debate again???

Well again, there is no 'Them' and 'Us' in my language... only Me/My Nation and then everyone else. The NH isn't a Bloc... it's simply an area out of which a number of International sides operate... all competing with each other. Add the SH sides into the mix and that's only more sides to compete against for every single National side.... but there is no 'we' in terms of the goals and priorities of a NH 'sect' or 'club' or 'cult' or whatever you want to call it. If anything the 'Club' v 'Nation' debate across Europe has proved that we're all lone operators, out to survive as best we can as Individual Nations and/or clubs.

New Zealand have every right to look at their accounts, look at the schedules, look at their market value, and then decide how they want to proceed from here on in as a viable concern both as a Professional 'Product' and as a National Representative Team.

If that decision means they would seek to make individual contracts with individual nations after 2019, to better serve their methods of survival in a dog-eat-dog commercial world, then so be it. Blessings on them

by aucklandlaurie Wed 16 Mar 2016, 3:02 pm

Hazel Sapling wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
BamBam wrote:Good old LD, overlooking the fact that NZ rugby owns the biggest brand in the game

I'm sure all of the other countries would be delighted to lose the income that they earn from hosting the All Blacks

I am not overlooking anything. What I am saying is NZ losing everybody else, is worst than everybody else losing NZ.

I think that is the right way of putting it.

No. that's not the right way of putting it, there's no such word as "worst".

Personally I ignore this kind of conversation because they go nowhere. I do believe however there is a word called worst. As in the worst rugby team in the world at the moment is American Samoa. Incorrectly used in this case. It should be worse.

Correct.

by LordDowlais Wed 16 Mar 2016, 3:05 pm

I love it when people pick you up on grammar, when it is auto spell on your tablet that is doing the spelling for you. Rolling Eyes

by SecretFly Wed 16 Mar 2016, 3:07 pm

There is no such thing as 'Tablet' - it's only a stolen word to make a big phone sound sexy!

by aucklandlaurie Wed 16 Mar 2016, 3:14 pm

SecretFly wrote:There is no such thing as 'Tablet' - it's only a stolen word to make a big phone sound sexy!

Now is it 'sound sexy' or 'sexy sound' or just rowdy sex?

by SecretFly Wed 16 Mar 2016, 3:18 pm

Sounds like you had a pleasing --- if tiring...night, laurie. Some guys get all the luck.

by asoreleftshoulder Wed 16 Mar 2016, 3:21 pm

I hope NZ stick to their guns and we can finally see a sensible rugby calendar created.
The club game is a mess up here so a global season that streamlined club and international rugby would be great.
Unfortunately I expect that NZ will be given some extra money to placate them and things will just carry on as usual.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 16 Mar 2016, 3:21 pm

SecretFly wrote:Sounds like you had a pleasing --- if tiring...night, laurie. Some guys get all the luck.

Ah you only live once.

by **profitius** Wed 16 Mar 2016, 4:04 pm

We know where this is going. World rugby will just pay the T1 nations more money.

New Zealand's gripe with that is the All Blacks are not fairly compensated for their influence and commercial impact. Stadiums such as Twickenham and the Millennium Stadium sell out for All Blacks' tests in November, but don't often when the opposition is Australia or South Africa.

They've a massive sponsor, sell loads of jerseys (huge amounts in the NH), they charge teams to play them already etc.

I wouldn't blame them for trying this. If they got 50% of England's TV rights, they will have struck gold.

by SecretFly Wed 16 Mar 2016, 4:27 pm

Why is it always complicated anyway? Finance people always want to complicate affairs (and give ten thousand reasons 'why') No, let's just un-complicate it and say that an International between two International sides on any part of the planet - the money generated is split two ways - down the middle - all of it - no excuses from fancy talking accountants/TV execs giving any excuses why it can't be so.

That would mean that both SH and NH teams gain AND suffer from the rise in profits at NH games and the fall-off in takings from games played in the SH. Fair is fair - for all - and no side could complain about fairness. And if they did complain, it would be simple proof that they don't want fairness at all.

Make the split even and then you can demand that the All Blacks stop the practice of charging fees for the privilege of playing against them.

by Poorfour Wed 16 Mar 2016, 5:04 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:I hope NZ stick to their guns and we can finally see a sensible rugby calendar created.
The club game is a mess up here so a global season that streamlined club and international rugby would be great.
Unfortunately I expect that NZ will be given some extra money to placate them and things will just carry on as usual.

I agree. The season needs sorting and I hope this becomes the catalyst to do it. Sadly, I fear it won't. But a properly organised global season would - once the griping dies down - benefit everyone.

I like the 6N being where it is - but I can see more benefit in a season that mirrors the SH one and builds up to international rugby at the end of the season.

by Exiledinborders Wed 16 Mar 2016, 5:18 pm

Poorfour wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:I hope NZ stick to their guns and we can finally see a sensible rugby calendar created.
The club game is a mess up here so a global season that streamlined club and international rugby would be great.
Unfortunately I expect that NZ will be given some extra money to placate them and things will just carry on as usual.

I agree. The season needs sorting and I hope this becomes the catalyst to do it. Sadly, I fear it won't. But a properly organised global season would - once the griping dies down - benefit everyone.

I like the 6N being where it is - but I can see more benefit in a season that mirrors the SH one and builds up to international rugby at the end of the season.

Whose end of season? The NH or SH end of season?

by R!skysports Wed 16 Mar 2016, 5:20 pm

profitius wrote:We know where this is going. World rugby will just pay the T1 nations more money.

f0000]]New Zealand's gripe with that is the All Blacks are not fairly compensated for their influence and commercial impact. Stadiums such as Twickenham and the Millennium Stadium sell out for All Blacks' tests in November, but don't often when the opposition is Australia or South Africa.

They've a massive sponsor, sell loads of jerseys (huge amounts in the NH), they charge teams to play them already etc.

I wouldn't blame them for trying this. If they got 50% of England's TV rights, they will have struck gold. [/quote]

Not sure that is even true - I am sure they all sell out - as do the 6 nations and most tier 1 Internationals

by Exiledinborders Wed 16 Mar 2016, 5:21 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:I hope NZ stick to their guns and we can finally see a sensible rugby calendar created.
The club game is a mess up here so a global season that streamlined club and international rugby would be great.
Unfortunately I expect that NZ will be given some extra money to placate them and things will just carry on as usual.

Are you sure that is what NZ want? It looks more likely that they just want a subsidy from England and France.

by doctor_grey Wed 16 Mar 2016, 9:13 pm

I agree with a lot of the points made above - on both sides. But I find it difficult to discuss fairness of revenue sharing without knowing the full picture. If the ABs charge for visiting a stadium, then what is that number? On the face of it a better balance of revenue is appropriate. But the devil is in the details.

I do agree, however, as I think most of us do, a change is needed in the overall schedule of Rugby globally. A more rational schedule is needed. It should not, however, favour on side or another.

by The Great Aukster Wed 16 Mar 2016, 11:28 pm

doctor_grey wrote:I do agree, however, as I think most of us do, a change is needed in the overall schedule of Rugby globally. A more rational schedule is needed. It should not, however, favour on side or another.

Given that the two seasons are diametrically opposed any move will automatically favour one side over the other.

It seems there are two issues:
1. Lack of revenue in a RWC year
2. Desire by the ABs to tap into the NH money pots.

In relation to 1. World Rugby need to get rid of the dinosaurs and adjust the timing of the tournament so the SH would only lose out with a SH host but would gain with a NH host. The SH don't seem willing to compromise on this because the timing suits them from a rugby perspective so they just look at the defecit from a mercenary pov.

For 2. 50:50 is fine as SF says but if that includes tv money then some teams will be far more attractive than others. So the real issue is that those Unions with money like England and France will be the teams that the ABs will play most frequently because they maximise their revenue that way. This will increase the gap between the haves and have nots until the RWC will be a mirror image of the JWC.

by **Notch** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:10 am

This is extremely good news. The current calendar and financial model is broken beyond all repair and their are too many vested, contradictory interests in the NH games to allow us to deliver meaningful change.. I hope that Australia and South Africa join them in this stand. As ever, the SH lead the way forward.

by **profitius** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:45 am

The Great Aukster wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:I do agree, however, as I think most of us do, a change is needed in the overall schedule of Rugby globally. A more rational schedule is needed. It should not, however, favour on side or another.

Given that the two seasons are diametrically opposed any move will automatically favour one side over the other.

It seems there are two issues:
1. Lack of revenue in a RWC year
2. Desire by the ABs to tap into the NH money pots.

In relation to 1. World Rugby need to get rid of the dinosaurs and adjust the timing of the tournament so the SH would only lose out with a SH host but would gain with a NH host. The SH don't seem willing to compromise on this because the timing suits them from a rugby perspective so they just look at the defecit from a mercenary pov.

For 2. 50:50 is fine as SF says but if that includes tv money then some teams will be far more attractive than others. So the real issue is that those Unions with money like England and France will be the teams that the ABs will play most frequently because they maximise their revenue that way. This will increase the gap between the haves and have nots until the RWC will be a mirror image of the JWC.

Good points there, TGA.

On point 1, if you look at the NH season and compare it to the SH season, the NH season is all over the place while the SH season smoothly goes from one tournament to another. I think any changes should address the imbalance.

Theres something about it that bothers me though. Australia has expanded their super rugby teams to 5 fairly recently even though they couldn't afford to. They keep spending and THEN blame the world cup (like its a surprise) for any shortcomings. So world rugby then has to fork out millions as compensation. Heres a solution. Reduce the number of professional teams to something you can afford!!

by rainbow-warrior Thu 17 Mar 2016, 4:48 am

It would be sad but Union is bigger than any one nation and it will get along very well without NZ playing test rugby. After all it went along fine without S Africa.

by rainbow-warrior Thu 17 Mar 2016, 4:54 am

BamBam wrote:Good old LD, overlooking the fact that NZ rugby owns the biggest brand in the game

I'm sure all of the other countries would be delighted to lose the income that they earn from hosting the All Blacks

Biggest brand in the game? Only in NZ and in fact Adidas OWN the AB's.

Think you will find that Wales and England fill their stadiums with most other top rugby nations too so the AB's are not a huge money spinner.

As for the rugby calender why are we bending backwards to satisfy one Nation, tell them to bugger off as I have said elsewhere Union is bigger than any nation and the world won't miss them.

by SecretFly Thu 17 Mar 2016, 12:25 pm

Didn't they do a diagram during the WC? - it showed the World and coloured in the areas of it where a participating Nation got most 'hits'/internet traffic during the event. I seem to remember that New Zealand was by far the most popular search result of all the Nations taking part.

So envy has a nice smell in the morning perhaps - but NO, the world is the world, and evidence suggests it would Miss New Zealand - and so too would Rugby Union. Or to word it another way: if New Zealand no longer competed, the rest of the World wouldn't miss the rest of us at all.

But then again, maybe it's just that some here are thinking "Finally!!!! - the chance at becoming Number 1 in the world if those All Black eejits pull out".

A very pale, frail, pathetic route to the top of any hill in my opinion.

by Shifty Thu 17 Mar 2016, 12:40 pm

Truth is Northern Hemisphere rugby is more sustainable than then Southern part, I don't think the 6 Nations would really care as we can easily play each other instead, and then at least have a chance at winning. Our clubs and probably the players themselves would likely prefer not to tour in the summer. Their teams sneak in and out of 6 Nations countries for one off tests while ours are dragged over large land masses over the course of three grueling weeks, with sometimes mid week games squeezed in.
Even if we only saw New Zealand at rugby World Cups, most people would hardly notice in my opinion. It wasn't that long ago that British teams would play two-three Tier B nations, then play one of the tri nations teams at the end.

New Zealand tried this before and were voted down, their argument was that both teams playing at any venue should share the gate receipts evenly, the Celtic nations were very hostile to it, as their huge filled stadiums basically supports their own professional rugby, and they couldn't lose the revenue. This isn't a new argument. The counter Celtic argument was that if their teams played 2 tests in New Zealand Auckland (55,000), Christchurch (47,000), Wellington (36,500) are much smaller than their six nations counter parts stadiums.

New Zealand already apparently are paid £1.5m by a host nation every time they play, and gate receipts are £3.5m? From a full house from what I remember so their already having a third now.

by Shifty Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:00 pm

SecretFly wrote:Why is it always complicated anyway? Finance people always want to complicate affairs (and give ten thousand reasons 'why') No, let's just un-complicate it and say that an International between two International sides on any part of the planet - the money generated is split two ways - down the middle - all of it - no excuses from fancy talking accountants/TV execs giving any excuses why it can't be so.

That would mean that both SH and NH teams gain AND suffer from the rise in profits at NH games and the fall-off in takings from games played in the SH. Fair is fair - for all - and no side could complain about fairness. And if they did complain, it would be simple proof that they don't want fairness at all.

Make the split even and then you can demand that the All Blacks stop the practice of charging fees for the privilege of playing against them.

This has been tried and the argument put forward by the Six nations is the three Celts and Italy support professional rugby in their countries from gate receipts from international matches and promptly out voted New Zealand. They were actually prepared to not play New Zealand which forced them to back track. This won't work because it would basically wipe out professional rugby in 4 countries and make the 6 Nations pointless, and for what? Just to keep New Zealand top of world rugby.

by aucklandlaurie Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:14 pm

Shifty wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Why is it always complicated anyway? Finance people always want to complicate affairs (and give ten thousand reasons 'why') No, let's just un-complicate it and say that an International between two International sides on any part of the planet - the money generated is split two ways - down the middle - all of it - no excuses from fancy talking accountants/TV execs giving any excuses why it can't be so.

That would mean that both SH and NH teams gain AND suffer from the rise in profits at NH games and the fall-off in takings from games played in the SH. Fair is fair - for all - and no side could complain about fairness. And if they did complain, it would be simple proof that they don't want fairness at all.

Make the split even and then you can demand that the All Blacks stop the practice of charging fees for the privilege of playing against them.

This has been tried and the argument put forward by the Six nations is the three Celts and Italy support professional rugby in their countries from gate receipts from international matches and promptly out voted New Zealand. They were actually prepared to not play New Zealand which forced them to back track. This won't work because it would basically wipe out professional rugby in 4 countries and make the 6 Nations pointless, and for what? Just to keep New Zealand top of world rugby.

There is also the unfainess to New Zealand, in that the June tests are a far inferior product to sell to television broadcasters than the "Autumn" series at the end of the year.
New Zealand every year sends a quality team to the Northern Hemisphere (and usually win all their games) wheras many Northen Hemisphere Countries send teams down here in June that are rubbish, and are incapable of competing.

Now if we could just find some way to raise the standard of these Northern Hemisphere teams then we might commence some progress on this issue.

by SecretFly Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:15 pm

Shifty wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Why is it always complicated anyway? Finance people always want to complicate affairs (and give ten thousand reasons 'why') No, let's just un-complicate it and say that an International between two International sides on any part of the planet - the money generated is split two ways - down the middle - all of it - no excuses from fancy talking accountants/TV execs giving any excuses why it can't be so.

That would mean that both SH and NH teams gain AND suffer from the rise in profits at NH games and the fall-off in takings from games played in the SH. Fair is fair - for all - and no side could complain about fairness. And if they did complain, it would be simple proof that they don't want fairness at all.

Make the split even and then you can demand that the All Blacks stop the practice of charging fees for the privilege of playing against them.

This has been tried and the argument put forward by the Six nations is the three Celts and Italy support professional rugby in their countries from gate receipts from international matches and promptly out voted New Zealand. They were actually prepared to not play New Zealand which forced them to back track. This won't work because it would basically wipe out professional rugby in 4 countries and make the 6 Nations pointless, and for what? Just to keep New Zealand top of world rugby.

That's Ireland, Wales and Scotland.... we're not a sect or free masons society either Wink

I think the idea nowadays of any of them being wiped out because New Zealand take half of the gate (or indeed TV rights etc) is a little oversold, if still an argument at all.

If the idea is 50/50 in all stadiums for all competing sides then the balance over a year is that basically all top sides would be getting roughly the same kinds of income from International games.... the 'Celtic' Nations don't always play at home...and don't always play against SH competition when they don't.

Skill, endeavour, schools rugby, genuine natural class, and a fabulous National coaching web (that is used on a practical level according to reports - ie all coaches must contribute to ideas and strategies that might eventually lead into the National team) - that is what keeps New Zealand on top.

Again, some of this sounds like it's more an opportunity for some in the NH to seek to strangle the power base of New Zealand rugby itself. I'd prefer just keep trying to beat them on the field.

by aucklandlaurie Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:27 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Shifty wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Why is it always complicated anyway? Finance people always want to complicate affairs (and give ten thousand reasons 'why') No, let's just un-complicate it and say that an International between two International sides on any part of the planet - the money generated is split two ways - down the middle - all of it - no excuses from fancy talking accountants/TV execs giving any excuses why it can't be so.

That would mean that both SH and NH teams gain AND suffer from the rise in profits at NH games and the fall-off in takings from games played in the SH. Fair is fair - for all - and no side could complain about fairness. And if they did complain, it would be simple proof that they don't want fairness at all.

Make the split even and then you can demand that the All Blacks stop the practice of charging fees for the privilege of playing against them.

This has been tried and the argument put forward by the Six nations is the three Celts and Italy support professional rugby in their countries from gate receipts from international matches and promptly out voted New Zealand. They were actually prepared to not play New Zealand which forced them to back track. This won't work because it would basically wipe out professional rugby in 4 countries and make the 6 Nations pointless, and for what? Just to keep New Zealand top of world rugby.

That's Ireland, Wales and Scotland.... we're not a sect or free masons society either

I think the idea nowadays of any of them being wiped out because New Zealand take half of the gate (or indeed TV rights etc) is a little oversold, if still an argument at all.

If the idea is 50/50 in all stadiums for all competing sides then the balance over a year is that basically all top sides would be getting roughly the same kinds of income from International games.... the 'Celtic' Nations don't always play at home...and don't always play against SH competition when they don't.

Skill, endeavour, schools rugby, genuine natural class, and a fabulous National coaching web (that is used on a practical level according to reports - ie all coaches must contribute to ideas and strategies that might eventually lead into the National team) - that is what keeps New Zealand on top.

Again, some of this sounds like it's more an opportunity for some in the NH to seek to strangle the power base of New Zealand rugby itself. I'd prefer just keep trying to beat them on the field.

Fly, Just wondering. Is it the quality of the coaches We're sending up to you?

by SecretFly Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:30 pm

You have enough of your own to be going on with Laurie...and New Zealanders get along with us anyway Wink

Besides, we all know them lads also perform as spies - ie, when they go back home they have an ocean of info on the systems and the up and coming players up North. They are put in the electrocution chairs and commanded to spill all ....................

by Sponsored content