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

NZ seem to think that because they produce the best players they should get the highest revenues. It doesn't work that way I'm afraid.
Tew in his article says that Twickenham only sells out for NZ and not for AUS or SA. Well thats complete bull. Twickenham capacity is what 82000, do they ever drop below 80,000 even when hosting Italy, Samoa, etc???

Its all about them trying to show how NZ are a brand rather than simply a team. Shame when it comes to hosting teams in NZ they can't get fans through the gates in enough numbers... and thats the real reason.

Yes, NZ is a small country but the truth of the matter is that Wales, Ireland, Scotland are too, in SA the support base comes mainly from the white and coloured populations numbering only 10 million persons combined yet they still manage to make rugby the most viewed attendance wise club setup in the world.

Cape Town is a city of 3.5 million people but the city's stormers team regularly get 40,000 average attendances in SR and about 30,000 in Currie Cup (1st and 2nd tier rugby in SA) and many of the fans travel vast distances each weekend to attend matches, way beyond the city's geographical limits.
They also heavily benefit financially from being in SANZAR. Money is equally split but SA provides the lions share in viewers and rugby markets.

The home truth is that NZ both in club and test rugby don't pack out stadiums like others do... half of that is due to their small and widely spread population... but the other part is because its not as popular as people think.... so they go after other peoples money.

Can look at the last genuine AI tests for examples in 2014

England played

NZ 82,223
SA 82,000
SAMOA 82,076
AUS 82,044

Those were the attendances according to wiki. So they managed a whole 150 more fans than Samoa. Wow. Take the SA match too, 200 fans less sure. Again nothing but the SA match can be marketed prime time in SA TV, marketed to tens of millions of fans, that means sponsorship will be more valid for these matches then a 4am deadzone in NZ when only the brave and the bold will stay up/wake up for a sure thing victory over the poms! NZ is a big match sure but financially others are simply more attractive.

Blunt wa of putting it fa0019, but ultimately correct.

This seems a bit like a power play to ensure the world considers the might all blacks as the mighty all blacks, and not just as another nation competing.

fa0019 wrote:NZ seem to think that because they produce the best players they should get the highest revenues. It doesn't work that way I'm afraid.
Tew in his article says that Twickenham only sells out for NZ and not for AUS or SA. Well thats complete bull. Twickenham capacity is what 82000, do they ever drop below 80,000 even when hosting Italy, Samoa, etc???

Its all about them trying to show how NZ are a brand rather than simply a team. Shame when it comes to hosting teams in NZ they can't get fans through the gates in enough numbers... and thats the real reason.

Yes, NZ is a small country but the truth of the matter is that Wales, Ireland, Scotland are too, in SA the support base comes mainly from the white and coloured populations numbering only 10 million persons combined yet they still manage to make rugby the most viewed attendance wise club setup in the world.

Cape Town is a city of 3.5 million people but the city's stormers team regularly get 40,000 average attendances in SR and about 30,000 in Currie Cup (1st and 2nd tier rugby in SA) and many of the fans travel vast distances each weekend to attend matches, way beyond the city's geographical limits.
They also heavily benefit financially from being in SANZAR. Money is equally split but SA provides the lions share in viewers and rugby markets.

The home truth is that NZ both in club and test rugby don't pack out stadiums like others do... half of that is due to their small and widely spread population... but the other part is because its not as popular as people think.... so they go after other peoples money.

Can look at the last genuine AI tests for examples in 2014

England played

NZ 82,223
SA 82,000
SAMOA 82,076
AUS 82,044

Those were the attendances according to wiki. So they managed a whole 150 more fans than Samoa. Wow. Take the SA match too, 200 fans less sure. Again nothing but the SA match can be marketed prime time in SA TV, marketed to tens of millions of fans, that means sponsorship will be more valid for these matches then a 4am deadzone in NZ when only the brave and the bold will stay up/wake up for a sure thing victory over the poms! NZ is a big match sure but financially others are simply more attractive.

I'm not sure I'd agree. I think the issue is the sustainability of the game. Everybody has their issues. As I understand it it's a NZ/SA statement of position before the next round of tours is set in stone. I personally think it's a great idea. It's certainly a much better way of funding developing nations, such as the PI teams etc. 2014 generated approx. 58 Million pounds of revenue from tickets, catering and corporate packages at the 7 internationals at Twickenham. Even accounting for the RFU's  costs Samoa's share would have exceeded the IRB's annual direct funding.  About 110,000 turned up to watch Fiji play Wales and France.

By the way. look at the data from all the games on in Autumn. Outside of Twickenham it's not so rosy. Take Murrayfield. Sold out fore NZ, half full for Argentina and less than a 1/4 full for Tonga.

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.

It ain't cheap watching the AB's in NZ either well over 70 quid for a not so decent seat at Eden Park. NZ had the chance to build a brand new stadium for the World Cup and turned the offer down for doing up Eden Park with temp seating. Fact is NZ would not fill stadiums at home if they were 70,000 / 80,000 seaters. For most games now you can buy a ticket on the day for most internationals including the Bok and Aussie. THAT"S why they want to share the NH pot.

fa0019 wrote:NZ seem to think that because they produce the best players they should get the highest revenues. It doesn't work that way I'm afraid.
Tew in his article says that Twickenham only sells out for NZ and not for AUS or SA. Well thats complete bull. Twickenham capacity is what 82000, do they ever drop below 80,000 even when hosting Italy, Samoa, etc???

Its all about them trying to show how NZ are a brand rather than simply a team. Shame when it comes to hosting teams in NZ they can't get fans through the gates in enough numbers... and thats the real reason.

Yes, NZ is a small country but the truth of the matter is that Wales, Ireland, Scotland are too, in SA the support base comes mainly from the white and coloured populations numbering only 10 million persons combined yet they still manage to make rugby the most viewed attendance wise club setup in the world.

Cape Town is a city of 3.5 million people but the city's stormers team regularly get 40,000 average attendances in SR and about 30,000 in Currie Cup (1st and 2nd tier rugby in SA) and many of the fans travel vast distances each weekend to attend matches, way beyond the city's geographical limits.
They also heavily benefit financially from being in SANZAR. Money is equally split but SA provides the lions share in viewers and rugby markets.

The home truth is that NZ both in club and test rugby don't pack out stadiums like others do... half of that is due to their small and widely spread population... but the other part is because its not as popular as people think.... so they go after other peoples money.

Can look at the last genuine AI tests for examples in 2014

England played

NZ 82,223
SA 82,000
SAMOA 82,076
AUS 82,044

Those were the attendances according to wiki. So they managed a whole 150 more fans than Samoa. Wow. Take the SA match too, 200 fans less sure. Again nothing but the SA match can be marketed prime time in SA TV, marketed to tens of millions of fans, that means sponsorship will be more valid for these matches then a 4am deadzone in NZ when only the brave and the bold will stay up/wake up for a sure thing victory over the poms! NZ is a big match sure but financially others are simply more attractive.

fa, are ticket prices for the games against SA, Samoa and AUs the same price as tickets against the ABs?

aucklandlaurie wrote:fa, are ticket prices for the games against SA, Samoa and AUs the same price as tickets against the ABs?

No Laurie. England actually charge more for a ticket to see the All Blacks than any other nation.  Each of the major world cup nations are based on their draw value, and according to the RFU's own guidelines New Zealand are the most valuable team.  I accept I have been arguing against you on most of this thread, but in this instance the facts seem to support the basic arguments you have been making.  

Information source:  RFU Council meeting minutes, Appendix one, page 9 and 10 from the RFU meeting on the 26th of February.  

http://gloucestershirerfu.co.uk/FCKfiles/File/20160226_RFU_Council_Notes.pdf

Match Categorisation.

The seven match categories agreed by Council in September 2015 are as follows:

o A++ New Zealand
o A+ Wales, Ireland, and France
o A Australia, Scotland, and South Africa
o B Italy and Argentina
o C Samoa, Tonga, Fiji


3.1 Category A+
FRANCE
Price Category Entitlement Price Face Value
Premium £130 £161
1 £105 £135
2 £96 £124
3 £88 £108
4 £79 £97
5 £65 £78
6 £41 £45

3.2 Category A
AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AFRICA & SCOTLAND
Price Category Entitlement Price Face Value
Premium £104 £127
1 £95 £116
2 £86 £105
3 £76 £92
4 £66 £80
5 £59 £70
6 £41 £45

3.3 Category B
ARGENTINA & ITALY
Price Category Entitlement Price Face Value
Premium* £83 £104
1* £78 £95
2* £70 £86
3* £63 £76
4* £55 £66
5* £48 £59
6* £37 £41
* Under 16 concession price of £20 available.

3.4 Category C
FIJI
Price Category Entitlement Price Face Value
Premium* £50 £60
1* £35 £40
2* £25 £30
* Under 16 concession price of £15 available

Its all good Shifty, I knew the answer to the question before asking the question.