No more Tests for NZ

First topic message reminder :

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

profitius wrote:

Shifty wrote:

profitius wrote:Exactly. Its common sense really. Players have a professional career thanks to not just their own efforts but the efforts of a lot of people so giving a little back should not be an issue.

Shifty talks about slaves. Get a grip man! I'm talking about something like 5-10% tax from high earners, who would not be high earners but for the efforts of those in NZ rugby.

To me it's totally bonkers, but there you go if that's what you think should happen.

Fairness would be the word I'd use. Giving something back to the organisation that put so much resources into training you sounds very normal to me. Theres no such thing as a free lunch.

stand in front of Opeti Fonua holding a Big Mac and see what he says about it, I'll be waiting in a&e for you.

Shifty wrote:

profitius wrote:

Shifty wrote:

profitius wrote:Exactly. Its common sense really. Players have a professional career thanks to not just their own efforts but the efforts of a lot of people so giving a little back should not be an issue.

Shifty talks about slaves. Get a grip man! I'm talking about something like 5-10% tax from high earners, who would not be high earners but for the efforts of those in NZ rugby.

To me it's totally bonkers, but there you go if that's what you think should happen.

Fairness would be the word I'd use. Giving something back to the organisation that put so much resources into training you sounds very normal to me. Theres no such thing as a free lunch.

stand in front of Opeti Fonua holding a Big Mac and see what he says about it, I'll be waiting in a&e for you.

OK using Opeti as an example, think where he came from (before France)?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Shifty wrote:

profitius wrote:

Shifty wrote:

profitius wrote:Exactly. Its common sense really. Players have a professional career thanks to not just their own efforts but the efforts of a lot of people so giving a little back should not be an issue.

Shifty talks about slaves. Get a grip man! I'm talking about something like 5-10% tax from high earners, who would not be high earners but for the efforts of those in NZ rugby.

To me it's totally bonkers, but there you go if that's what you think should happen.

Fairness would be the word I'd use. Giving something back to the organisation that put so much resources into training you sounds very normal to me. Theres no such thing as a free lunch.

stand in front of Opeti Fonua holding a Big Mac and see what he says about it, I'll be waiting in a&e for you.  

OK using Opeti as an example, think where he came from (before France)?

I see the point your making, but look at it this way would you be happy paying 10% of your wages to your first employer? I gather most people would have more than one. They could make a case of developing you.

Shifty wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Shifty wrote:

profitius wrote:

Shifty wrote:

profitius wrote:Exactly. Its common sense really. Players have a professional career thanks to not just their own efforts but the efforts of a lot of people so giving a little back should not be an issue.

Shifty talks about slaves. Get a grip man! I'm talking about something like 5-10% tax from high earners, who would not be high earners but for the efforts of those in NZ rugby.

To me it's totally bonkers, but there you go if that's what you think should happen.

Fairness would be the word I'd use. Giving something back to the organisation that put so much resources into training you sounds very normal to me. Theres no such thing as a free lunch.

stand in front of Opeti Fonua holding a Big Mac and see what he says about it, I'll be waiting in a&e for you.  

OK using Opeti as an example, think where he came from (before France)?

I see the point your making, but look at it this way would you be happy paying 10% of your wages to your first employer?  I gather most people would have more than one.  They could make a case of developing you.

#

Actually I'll debate myself and point out US citizens regardless of what country they live in MUST pay income tax, regardless of whether they set foot in the US or not.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-us-citizens-living-abroad-owe-us-tax.html

Interesting way of looking at the discussion.

So a SWAT team abseil down into the American's cornflakes bowl on a lovely crisp London morning and demand he pays them the money he owes them?

Now there's efficiency. The under-pressure British Budget Tsar should take note!

SecretFly wrote:So a SWAT team abseil down into the American's cornflakes bowl on a lovely crisp London morning and demand he pays them the money he owes them?

Now there's efficiency.  The under-pressure British Budget Tsar should take note!  

The only way to get around it is to hand in your citizenship!

But ... if an American don't ever go home again for the rest of his life - an exile in other words - he gets not to pay the tax?

I'm asking how the Americans can enforce the rule of 'pay up' if the American works in another Nation and pays all his money into a non-American bank?

I know the ruling BTW...just not the details of how it's enforced

It is called FATCA, where basically the IRS threaten multi national financial institutions with a flat 30% tax charge if they do not report interest, dividends etc for anyone with a US passport or even a US telephone number.

It was a unilateral action and tax authorities and financial institutions around the world after initial consternation have fallen into line.

I love this I really do. Perhaps the French could pipe up as well when we are at it, as they never get the B&I Lions to do a tour of France, which when you take all the sarcasm out of it, would make more money than any other tour of the SH.

Perhaps the French should be allowed to have a slice of the B&I Lions pie and New Zealand get another year without a B&I tour.

LordDowlais wrote:I love this I really do. Perhaps the French could pipe up as well when we are at it, as they never get the B&I Lions to do a tour of France, which when you take all the sarcasm out of it, would make more money than any other tour of the SH.

Perhaps the French should be allowed to have a slice of the B&I Lions pie and New Zealand get another year without a B&I tour.

The Lions should resume touring to Argentina, before deciding to do tours of France.

LordDowlais wrote:I love this I really do. Perhaps the French could pipe up as well when we are at it, as they never get the B&I Lions to do a tour of France, which when you take all the sarcasm out of it, would make more money than any other tour of the SH.

Perhaps the French should be allowed to have a slice of the B&I Lions pie and New Zealand get another year without a B&I tour.

Here! Here! to letting France in on the Lions gig.  Hell, let the Italians in too.  We're all fambily, innit???  No?

So let's start that genuine campaign.  Expand the Lions.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I love this I really do. Perhaps the French could pipe up as well when we are at it, as they never get the B&I Lions to do a tour of France, which when you take all the sarcasm out of it, would make more money than any other tour of the SH.

Perhaps the French should be allowed to have a slice of the B&I Lions pie and New Zealand get another year without a B&I tour.

The Lions should resume touring to Argentina, before deciding to do tours of France.

Why should Argentina be favoured over France ?

LordDowlais wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I love this I really do. Perhaps the French could pipe up as well when we are at it, as they never get the B&I Lions to do a tour of France, which when you take all the sarcasm out of it, would make more money than any other tour of the SH.

Perhaps the French should be allowed to have a slice of the B&I Lions pie and New Zealand get another year without a B&I tour.

The Lions should resume touring to Argentina, before deciding to do tours of France.

Why should Argentina be favoured over France ?

Tradition, The Lions are a team founded on tradition.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I love this I really do. Perhaps the French could pipe up as well when we are at it, as they never get the B&I Lions to do a tour of France, which when you take all the sarcasm out of it, would make more money than any other tour of the SH.

Perhaps the French should be allowed to have a slice of the B&I Lions pie and New Zealand get another year without a B&I tour.

The Lions should resume touring to Argentina, before deciding to do tours of France.

Why should Argentina be favoured over France ?

Tradition, The Lions are a team founded on tradition.

No, according to New Zealand it's all about the ££££££'s. So lets take the B&I Lions out of the monopoly of the big three from the SH, lets open up the doors for all countries, France, Argentina, Italy. Why should only three countries be privvy to the earnings made from the Lions ?

LordDowlais wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I love this I really do. Perhaps the French could pipe up as well when we are at it, as they never get the B&I Lions to do a tour of France, which when you take all the sarcasm out of it, would make more money than any other tour of the SH.

Perhaps the French should be allowed to have a slice of the B&I Lions pie and New Zealand get another year without a B&I tour.

The Lions should resume touring to Argentina, before deciding to do tours of France.

Why should Argentina be favoured over France ?

Tradition, The Lions are a team founded on tradition.

No, according to New Zealand it's all about the ££££££'s. So lets take the B&I Lions out of the monopoly of the big three from the SH, lets open up the doors for all countries, France, Argentina, Italy. Why should only three countries be privvy to the earnings made from the Lions ?

Perhaps the Lions could do a tour of Wales?

LordDowlais wrote:


No, according to New Zealand it's all about the ££££££'s. So lets take the B&I Lions out of the monopoly of the big three from the SH, lets open up the doors for all countries, France, Argentina, Italy. Why should only three countries be privvy to the earnings made from the Lions ?

I knew very well you weren't on my side at all, Lord. I knew it couldn't possibly be true.
No, let's not let the Lions play against France and Italy but allow Italy and France to become part of the Lions.... a New Dawn Lions. Expansion. Considering it's the buzz word for many competitions now, including inevitably the 6N.... let's expand the Lions side. Let's stop being 'Traditionalist' about it.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I love this I really do. Perhaps the French could pipe up as well when we are at it, as they never get the B&I Lions to do a tour of France, which when you take all the sarcasm out of it, would make more money than any other tour of the SH.

Perhaps the French should be allowed to have a slice of the B&I Lions pie and New Zealand get another year without a B&I tour.

The Lions should resume touring to Argentina, before deciding to do tours of France.

Why should Argentina be favoured over France ?

Tradition, The Lions are a team founded on tradition.

No, according to New Zealand it's all about the ££££££'s. So lets take the B&I Lions out of the monopoly of the big three from the SH, lets open up the doors for all countries, France, Argentina, Italy. Why should only three countries be privvy to the earnings made from the Lions ?

Perhaps the Lions could do a tour of Wales?

Don't give him bright ideas, Laurie!

Just some food for thought though. Why do the B&I Lions only tour New Zealand, Australia and South Africa ? 

Why don't they tour other countries ?

LordDowlais wrote:Just some food for thought though. Why do the B&I Lions only tour New Zealand, Australia and South Africa ? 

Why don't they tour other countries ?

That's like asking why the B&I LIons exist in the first place, Lord.  You know - or should know - the answer perfectly.  Imperialism and the remembrance of it.....

Why do so many Lions supporters forget that the Queen is not just head of State of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.... but also Australia and New Zealand?

Indeed, South Africa and ourselves here in the South are the odd ones out!

The more I think about it, the more sense it would make money wise for the B&I Lions to tour New Zealand and Australia less, and South Africa, France and Argentina more.

Why? To win more?

SecretFly wrote:Why?  To win more?

No, because it would make more £££££££'s for the home unions.

There you go. The theme of modern rugby..... f**cking more and more ...and more..... and more - money.

Oh well........................

Well, that is what this whole debate was about in the first place, New Zealand want more money.

New Zealand deserve more money.

Many of us bluntly don't - and only manage to make it because we fans (the millions upon millions of us here in the NH) - settle for schit and call it 'qualitee'

SecretFly wrote:New Zealand deserve more money.

Yes, I agree with that, but they are going about it all the wrong way, to hold everybody else to ransom is wrong.

Recwatcher16 wrote:It is called FATCA, where basically the IRS threaten multi national financial institutions with a flat 30% tax charge if they do not report interest, dividends etc for anyone with a US passport or even a US telephone number.

It was a unilateral action and tax authorities and financial institutions around the world after initial consternation have fallen into line.

Oh my. I never thought the day would come when FATCA made it onto 606v2!

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:New Zealand deserve more money.

Yes, I agree with that, but they are going about it all the wrong way, to hold everybody else to ransom is wrong.

So is 'F**k you, we'll go our own way'.

We all know what it resembles Lord. Compromise is the Key. If people are nice to each other and say 'We understand your concerns. Do you want to hear ours?' That's what gets things moving. But for everyone to get all cocky and start 'larging' it - nope, we all in Europe know where that goes. It's not good for any lingering respect between Nations.... which is just about hanging in there but a very vulnerable beast.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:It is called FATCA, where basically the IRS threaten multi national financial institutions with a flat 30% tax charge if they do not report interest, dividends etc for anyone with a US passport or even a US telephone number.

It was a unilateral action and tax authorities and financial institutions around the world after initial consternation have fallen into line.

Oh my. I never thought the day would come when FATCA made it onto 606v2!

what a day!

LordDowlais wrote:Just some food for thought though. Why do the B&I Lions only tour New Zealand, Australia and South Africa ? 

Why don't they tour other countries ?

They used to tour Argentina.

LordDowlais wrote:The more I think about it, the more sense it would make money wise for the B&I Lions to tour New Zealand and Australia less, and South Africa, France and Argentina more.

One notices that you appear to be trying to avoid the top two ranked nations in the World.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Just some food for thought though. Why do the B&I Lions only tour New Zealand, Australia and South Africa ? 

Why don't they tour other countries ?

They used to tour Argentina.

Laurie, I think they've only ever played Argentina once (pre-tour 2005 in Cardiff). However, they have in the past played against Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), South West Africa (Namibia) Fiji and Canada , plus of course the Baa-Baa's in Hong Kong

PenfroPete wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Just some food for thought though. Why do the B&I Lions only tour New Zealand, Australia and South Africa ? 

Why don't they tour other countries ?

They used to tour Argentina.

Laurie, I think they've only ever played Argentina once (pre-tour 2005 in Cardiff). However, they have in the past played against Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), South West Africa (Namibia) Fiji and Canada , plus of course the Baa-Baa's in Hong Kong

The Lions have played 28 games in Argentina.

The historical tradition the Lions is founded upon is helping fledgling rugby nations grow their game. Those traditionalists would do well to bear that in mind as patently the top three SH sides do not need to grow their game, and in fact commit increasingly few resources to the warm up games to make them borderline farcical.

The modern commercially driven juggernaut is actually working against the original ethos the concept was founded upon.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

PenfroPete wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Just some food for thought though. Why do the B&I Lions only tour New Zealand, Australia and South Africa ? 

Why don't they tour other countries ?

They used to tour Argentina.

Laurie, I think they've only ever played Argentina once (pre-tour 2005 in Cardiff). However, they have in the past played against Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), South West Africa (Namibia) Fiji and Canada , plus of course the Baa-Baa's in Hong Kong

The Lions have played 28 games in Argentina.

I sit corrected Laurie, although there appears to be a little confusion as to whether or not they were 'official' tours

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_British_Lions_tour_to_Argentina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1927_British_Lions_tour_to_Argentina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_British_Lions_tour_to_Argentina

and do not appear here in the historical results
http://www.lionsrugby.com/history/historical-results.php

but are mentioned in the history (scrolling to the years)
http://www.lionsrugby.com/history/index.php

Bloody hell this one has gone off topic on the last 10 or so posts. A few posts ago we were discussing USA income tax and now were on Argentina Lions tours.

PenfroPete wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

PenfroPete wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Just some food for thought though. Why do the B&I Lions only tour New Zealand, Australia and South Africa ? 

Why don't they tour other countries ?

They used to tour Argentina.

Laurie, I think they've only ever played Argentina once (pre-tour 2005 in Cardiff). However, they have in the past played against Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), South West Africa (Namibia) Fiji and Canada , plus of course the Baa-Baa's in Hong Kong

The Lions have played 28 games in Argentina.

I sit corrected Laurie, although there appears to be a little confusion as to whether or not they were 'official' tours

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_British_Lions_tour_to_Argentina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1927_British_Lions_tour_to_Argentina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_British_Lions_tour_to_Argentina

and do not appear here in the historical results
http://www.lionsrugby.com/history/historical-results.php

but are mentioned in the history (scrolling to the years)
http://www.lionsrugby.com/history/index.php

It was all a bit before my time Pete, I was only suggesting "resuming tours to Argentina" in reply to LordDowlais' suggestion that the Lions should tour France.

Shifty wrote:Bloody hell this one has gone off topic on the last 10 or so posts. A few posts ago we were discussing USA income tax and now were on Argentina Lions tours.

Just goes to show Shifty you cant button off for a second, you gotta keep up.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

PenfroPete wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

PenfroPete wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Just some food for thought though. Why do the B&I Lions only tour New Zealand, Australia and South Africa ? 

Why don't they tour other countries ?

They used to tour Argentina.

Laurie, I think they've only ever played Argentina once (pre-tour 2005 in Cardiff). However, they have in the past played against Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), South West Africa (Namibia) Fiji and Canada , plus of course the Baa-Baa's in Hong Kong

The Lions have played 28 games in Argentina.

I sit corrected Laurie, although there appears to be a little confusion as to whether or not they were 'official' tours

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_British_Lions_tour_to_Argentina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1927_British_Lions_tour_to_Argentina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_British_Lions_tour_to_Argentina

and do not appear here in the historical results
http://www.lionsrugby.com/history/historical-results.php

but are mentioned in the history (scrolling to the years)
http://www.lionsrugby.com/history/index.php

It was all a bit before my time Pete, I was only suggesting "resuming tours to Argentina" in reply to LordDowlais' suggestion that the Lions should tour France.

If a B&I Lions tour to Argentina is going to put extra coffers into the Argentinian economy then perhaps we should bottom out the Argentinian position with regards to the Falklands.

Just saying like...

Basically if New Zealand did take their ball and went home, then the 6 Nations would need additional games to fill the gap.  We'd need 3-4 games in November, I was wondering earlier about what Europe could do to make things interesting.

I was thinking along these lines.  Increasing the 6 nations to 10 teams, and splitting it in to East and West to limit travelling.  We'd play the start in November (4 games), and then the second part as normal starting in February.   Then at the end of the season instead of the summer tour, we'd simply have a Grand final for the top team of each conference played on the Eastern side of things.

European / Asian Cup

West  
1 England
2 Wales
3 Ireland
4 Scotland
5 France
6 Italy
7 Spain
8 Germany
9 Portugal
10 Holland

East
1 Japan
2 Georgia
3 Romania
4 Russia
5 Hong Kong
6 South Korea
7 Ukraine
8 Moldova
9 Poland
10 Czech Republic

From our side of things, I think fans would love the chance to visit Madrid, Berlin, Lisbon, and particularly Amsterdam for the rugby.

Shifty wrote:Basically if New Zealand did take their ball and went home, then the 6 Nations would need additional games to fill the gap.  We'd need 3-4 games in November, I was wondering earlier about what Europe could do to make things interesting.

I was thinking along these lines.  Increasing the 6 nations to 10 teams, and splitting it in to East and West to limit travelling.  We'd play the start in November (4 games), and then the second part as normal starting in February.   Then at the end of the season instead of the summer tour, we'd simply have a Grand final for the top team of each conference played on the Eastern side of things.

European / Asian Cup

West  
1 England
2 Wales
3 Ireland
4 Scotland
5 France
6 Italy
7 Spain
8 Germany
9 Portugal
10 Holland

East
1 Japan
2 Georgia
3 Romania
4 Russia
5 Hong Kong
6 South Korea
7 Ukraine
8 Moldova
9 Poland
10 Czech Republic

From our side of things, I think fans would love the chance to visit Madrid, Berlin, Lisbon, and particularly Amsterdam for the rugby.

Shifty, Do you really think that Bill Beaumont would entertain such a thing?

aucklandlaurie wrote:Shifty, Do you really think that Bill Beaumont would entertain such a thing?

I don't really give a toss what Bill Beaumont wants in all honesty.  I was posting hypothetically, and thinking about the tens of thousands of Six nations rugby fans that go on their annual píss ups to party with the fans of the host nation, which makes the Six Nations what it is.  I also don't see what problem World Rugby might have, if New Zealand and South Africa don't want to play us, or everyone is unable to find a compromise then something will have to change with regards to the opposition the 6 Nations face.  I'm just looking at ideas that Welsh fans might like.  Whats great about the Six nations is were all local to each other, so finding other local teams with historical rivalries would be the best answer in my eyes.  Amsterdam, Berlin, Lisbon, and Madrid would be wonderful destinations for the fans to go to for a rugby weekend.

The last time Wales played Portugal in Lisbon, and Spain in Madrid everyone had a great time from what I gather.

Shifty wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Shifty, Do you really think that Bill Beaumont would entertain such a thing?

I don't really give a toss what Bill Beaumont wants in all honesty.  I was posting hypothetically, and thinking about the tens of thousands of Six nations rugby fans that go on their annual píss ups to party with the fans of the host nation, which makes the Six Nations what it is.  I also don't see what problem World Rugby might have, if New Zealand and South Africa don't want to play us, or everyone is unable to find a compromise then something will have to change with regards to the opposition the 6 Nations face.  I'm just looking at ideas that Welsh fans might like.  Whats great about the Six nations is were all local to each other, so finding other local teams with historical rivalries would be the best answer in my eyes.  Amsterdam, Berlin, Lisbon, and Madrid would be wonderful destinations for the fans to go to for a rugby weekend.

The last time Wales played Portugal in Lisbon, and Spain in Madrid everyone had a great time from what I gather.

Jeez Shifty, you have not grasped one iota as to what this thread is about.

aucklandlaurie wrote:Jeez Shifty, you have not grasped one iota as to what this thread is about.

New Zealand and South Africa WANT a more coordinated and structured season so it's not such a shambles. Australia refuse to change because they can't go head to head with rugby league and other sports in the summer months. While England and Wales can't alter their season times due to council legislation over their club grounds, and frankly French and English clubs hold all the cards on what happens in the professional end of the game.

New Zealand WANT to share all gate receipts in games they play in 50/50 while the Celts, an Italy point out they NEED the revenue they generate from international games because it funds their professional game. While they already have less professional teams than New Zealand.

New Zealand WANT is the jist of this thread.

Shifty wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Jeez Shifty, you have not grasped one iota as to what this thread is about.

New Zealand and South Africa WANT a more coordinated and structured season so it's not such a shambles.  Australia refuse to change because they can't go head to head with rugby league and other sports in the summer months.  While England and Wales can't alter their season times due to council legislation over their club grounds, and frankly French and English clubs hold all the cards on what happens in the professional end of the game.  

New Zealand WANT to share all gate receipts in games they play in 50/50 while the Celts, an Italy point out they NEED the revenue they generate from international games because it funds their professional game.   While they already have less professional teams than New Zealand.  

New Zealand WANT is the jist of this thread.  

Think your on the right track Shifty. I'd put it like this:

New Zealand and South Africa WANT a more coordinated and structured season so it's not such a shambles.  Australia and Argentina will probably go with them as they also WANT a more coordinated and structured season so it's not such a shambles (summer conflict with the NRL and AFL is not an issue).  The minor nations also WANT a more coordinated and structured season so they can field full strength sides and have an opportunity to develop their teams and play more meaningful games.  While England and Wales DON'T WANT to alter their season, and frankly French and English clubs hold all the cards on what happens in the professional end of the game.  

New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, South Africa, USA, Canada, Georgia, Romania, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa (and probably everyone outside the 6 Nations) WANT to share all gate receipts in games they play in 50/50. This allows them to sustain and their national sides and mitigate the money that is transferred to clubs from the Autumn internationals to clubs that partially funds player imports.  The Celts, and Italy WANT the revenue they generate from international games because it funds their professional game.  England and France WANT the revenue. In England it allows the the RFU to pays for the access to national players whilst supporting the domestic game.

Not grey and not a ghost wrote:Think your on the right track Shifty. I'd put it like this:

New Zealand and South Africa WANT a more coordinated and structured season so it's not such a shambles.  Australia and Argentina will probably go with them as they also WANT a more coordinated and structured season so it's not such a shambles (summer conflict with the NRL and AFL is not an issue).  The minor nations also WANT a more coordinated and structured season so they can field full strength sides and have an opportunity to develop their teams and play more meaningful games.  While England and Wales DON'T WANT to alter their season, and frankly French and English clubs hold all the cards on what happens in the professional end of the game.  

New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, South Africa, USA, Canada, Georgia, Romania, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa (and probably everyone outside the 6 Nations) WANT to share all gate receipts in games they play in 50/50. This allows  them to sustain and their national sides and mitigate the money that is transferred to clubs from the Autumn internationals to clubs that partially funds player imports.  The Celts, and Italy WANT the revenue they generate from international games because it funds their professional game.  England and France WANT the revenue. In England it allows the the RFU to pays for the access to national players whilst supporting the domestic game.

That's pretty good, and the important thing is nothing will probably change because everyone has been talking about this for 20 years with no progress made on the issue because of the above points. Were all hopeful something could be worked out but I can't see where the answer is with conditions as they are at the moment. If there was an obvious solution to any of this then it would of been found, and I notice no one here can suggest any viable way to fix this issue.
It just seems to be one endless circle of clubs complaining about lack of money so more fixtures are made, then players complain about player welfare so competitions are stopped. Then loyalty agreements are signed, and within 3 months someone moans about it. International rugby NEEDS to rule the sport because frankly only in France and England can the professional sport sustain itself without extra financing from the national team.

The NZRU has a similar turnover to both Ireland & Wales (similar populations) and a lot more than Scotland. Turnover (2013) of NZ$116.662 (£55.4m; €70.3m) with a profit of NZ$2,543 for 2013.

The only wealthy Union is the RFU. If countries like Wales and Ireland had to share their gate receipts with SH teams, they would really struggle to make ends meet.

Sin é wrote:The NZRU has a similar turnover to both Ireland & Wales (similar populations) and a lot more than Scotland. Turnover (2013) of NZ$116.662 (£55.4m; €70.3m) with a profit of NZ$2,543 for 2013.

The only wealthy Union is the RFU. If countries like Wales and Ireland had to share their gate receipts with SH teams, they would really struggle to make ends meet.

Maybe the answer is to use the little gem that is the lions tour as a tool, share gates in return the unions enter an auction every 4 years for who gets a lions tour, I'm sure the likes of Japan, France etc wouldn't mind a shout at being toured!

We could scrap the Lions and start our own European Cup an probably earn more. If we had a 16 team tournament with Ireland England, Wales and France each hosting a pool, and we organised the fixtures correctly it would easily make the money the Lions tour does.