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

We will be doing a release in the autumn of our 2016 range of coaches for the Northern Hemisphere Market, all come complete with a history of ITM and roles in Super dooper Rugby coaching structures. And if that Tana Umaga doesnt pull finger soon and select a proper team, then he will be chucked in for free.

Yeah....yeah...Leinster might be interested in taking Tana at that price....................

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

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 ....................

Talking of covert intelligence agents infiltrating New Zealand, In the last 24 hours our survelliance teams have noticed a lot of chaps wearing big green felt hats, singing songs and engaging in waterboarding but using green beer. We are bewildered.

P.S. Happy Paddys day to you sir.

aucklandlaurie wrote:


Talking of covert  intelligence agents infiltrating New Zealand, In the last 24 hours our survelliance teams have  noticed a lot of chaps wearing big green felt hats, singing songs and engaging in waterboarding but using green beer. We are bewildered.

P.S. Happy Paddys day to you sir.

Oh God, our Invasionary First-Strike Commandos exposed themselves too early yet one more time!!!!

They were specifically told not to drink too much this year and wait til the re-inforcements arrive! Damn it! - spoiled the Take-Over-of-The-World (*evil laugh*) Campaign one more time............ *sigh*

Thanks Laurie

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.

That might at first appear fair but you need to take into account costs as well as income.

If the gate receipts of both home and away games were split evenly it would mean that NZ and England would get the same income. However England's costs would be higher as the cost of putting on a game in London would be far higher than in New Zealand. That would mean NZ make more money from the games than England.

Also the NH teams have spent many millions of pounds building larger stadiums. It seems unfair if NZ are going to reap half the additional income with no investment.

If countries expand their stadiums and market games effectively they must be able to reap the reward.

aucklandlaurie 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.    

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.

Just in time for the Lions - will the NZ Rugby Union be willing to share the Lions income in a similar fashion:

Nine match British & Irish Lions Tour [to Australia] – including three Tests – generating an incremental surplus of $35m [for Australian Rugby Union], from what would ordinarily be expected from a typical June in-bound Test series.

The B+I Unions only get approx. €1m each for going on the tour (plus players get paid).

aucklandlaurie wrote:
We will be doing a release in the autumn of our 2016 range of coaches for the Northern Hemisphere Market, all come complete with a history of ITM and roles in Super dooper Rugby coaching structures. And if that  Tana Umaga doesnt pull finger soon and select a proper team, then he will be chucked in for free.

But then an Aussie goes to the UK and outdoes all the Kiwis hahaha. SUper Rugby basketball where the rules are overlooked for faster play to satisfy the customer yeah right!! Gatland so right to miss that crock of crap.

Exiledinborders 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.

That might at first appear fair but you need to take into account costs as well as income.

If the gate receipts of both home and away games were split evenly it would mean that NZ and England would get the same income. However England's costs would be higher as the cost of putting on a game in London would be far higher than in New Zealand. That would mean NZ make more money from the games than England.

Also the NH teams have spent many millions of pounds building larger stadiums. It seems unfair if NZ are going to reap half the additional income with no investment.

If countries expand their stadiums and market games effectively they must be able to reap the reward.

You talk of unfairness, however you overlook the cost to New Zealand of supplying a higher quality product. When you sell a Toyota Corolla you cant expect the sale price of a Lamborghini.

Sin é wrote:

aucklandlaurie 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.    

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.

Just in time for the Lions - will the NZ Rugby Union be willing to share the Lions income in a similar fashion:

Nine match British & Irish Lions Tour [to Australia] – including three Tests – generating an incremental surplus of $35m [for Australian Rugby Union], from what would ordinarily be expected from a typical June in-bound Test series.

The B+I Unions only get approx. €1m each for going on the tour (plus players get paid).

The Lions only come to new Zealand about once a decade, whereas we send the All Blacks up to you every year, religiously, without fail. the cost to "supply' the lions is spread across 4 countries, whereas the ABs are the product of one country.

aucklandlaurie wrote:...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...

I'd be more sympathetic to that argument if NZ hadn't insisted on scheduling the first Test match against England in 2014 so it conflicted with our domestic final. That somewhat made a mockery of NZRU complaints that it couldn't market games against less than full strength sides.

Rugby Fan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:...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...

I'd be more sympathetic to that argument if NZ hadn't insisted on scheduling the first Test match against England in 2014 so it conflicted with our domestic final. That somewhat made a mockery of NZRU complaints that it couldn't market games against less than full strength sides.

If I was sacastic, I would reply along the lines of ....Why should an English domestic game take priority over an international?
But Im not.

In that instance I felt the English were a bit too quick to come up with that excuse, and used it as an opportunity to field a less capable side, they were too quick to use the travel factor etc, whereas New Zeland players regularly play in South Africa one weekend and the following weekend turn out a top quality performance in New Zealand.

Rugby Fan you are right to remind us of that instance, because it is a very good example how congested the International Rugby callander is, and that is whats at the very crux of this whole issue.

aucklandlaurie wrote:If I was sacastic, I would reply along the lines of ....Why should an English domestic game take priority over an international?

Funny you should say that, because that was New Zealand's argument. That is, they decided the their own domestic schedule was more important than Test rugby.  Even World Rugby was somewhat taken aback by that stance, given the song and dance made by the NZRU about the importance of the international calendar to their budget.

The good news is, no-one ever has to take NZ seriously again when they complain about the make-up of touring sides.

Personally, I welcome the NZRU's stance on this matter. I don't think they are holding the game to ransom. All they are saying is, let's get off the treadmill for a moment so we can give this matter our full attention. If they went ahead and set up another schedule of matches, then it would be too easy for other parties to want to delay any changes until the fixtures had been fulfilled.

Rugby Fan wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:If I was sacastic, I would reply along the lines of ....Why should an English domestic game take priority over an international?

Funny you should say that, because that was New Zealand's argument. That is, they decided the their own domestic schedule was more important than Test rugby.  Even World Rugby was somewhat taken aback by that stance, given the song and dance made by the NZRU about the importance of the international calendar to their budget.

The good news is, no-one ever has to take NZ seriously again when they complain about the make-up of touring sides.

Personally, I welcome the NZRU's stance on this matter. I don't think they are holding the game to ransom. All they are saying is, let's get off the treadmill for a moment so we can give this matter our full attention. If they went ahead and set up another schedule of matches, then it would be too easy for other parties to want to delay any changes until the fixtures had been fulfilled.

You got it RF.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Sin é wrote:

aucklandlaurie 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.    

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.

Just in time for the Lions - will the NZ Rugby Union be willing to share the Lions income in a similar fashion:

Nine match British & Irish Lions Tour [to Australia] – including three Tests – generating an incremental surplus of $35m [for Australian Rugby Union], from what would ordinarily be expected from a typical June in-bound Test series.

The B+I Unions only get approx. €1m each for going on the tour (plus players get paid).

The Lions only come to new Zealand about once a decade, whereas we send the All Blacks up to you every year, religiously, without fail. the cost to "supply' the lions is spread across 4 countries, whereas the ABs are the product of one country.

The NH teams also tour every year as well as doing the Lions every 4 years. And the Lions isn't just 3 Test matches and it usually takes 6 weeks, not 3. When the Lions Tour is on, the NH national teams tour countries like Japan, Canada, US and countries that are not involved in a Lions tour that season.

Anyway, I hope the NZ Rugby Union are going to share the spoils 50:50 next season for the Lions.

Sin é wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Sin é wrote:

aucklandlaurie 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.    

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.

Just in time for the Lions - will the NZ Rugby Union be willing to share the Lions income in a similar fashion:

Nine match British & Irish Lions Tour [to Australia] – including three Tests – generating an incremental surplus of $35m [for Australian Rugby Union], from what would ordinarily be expected from a typical June in-bound Test series.

The B+I Unions only get approx. €1m each for going on the tour (plus players get paid).

The Lions only come to new Zealand about once a decade, whereas we send the All Blacks up to you every year, religiously, without fail. the cost to "supply' the lions is spread across 4 countries, whereas the ABs are the product of one country.

The NH teams also tour every year as well as doing the Lions every 4 years. And the Lions isn't just 3 Test matches and it usually takes 6 weeks, not 3. When the Lions Tour is on, the NH national teams tour countries like Japan, Canada, US and countries that are not involved in a Lions tour that season.

Anyway, I hope the NZ Rugby Union are going to share the spoils 50:50 next season for the Lions.

Surely the British (and Irish) wouldnt go back on their word and try to renegotiate the deal would they?

aucklandlaurie wrote:The Lions only come to new Zealand about once a decade, whereas we send the All Blacks up to you every year, religiously, without fail. the cost to "supply' the lions is spread across 4 countries, whereas the ABs are the product of one country.

Yes but we play you 3 times in November in 4 years, and when we do tour there the European teams play 3 tests, so it's 3 each per world cup cycle. So basically it's even, Wales tour to you will cover the 3 tests you will play against us before the next world cup.

The debate is moot, the Celtic teams can and will not accept any 50/50 proposals because they have their own struggles in trying to fund a professional game. In the northern hemisphere we built bigger stadiums to increase revenue, maybe New Zealand should think about doing that. Although the All Blacks are prestigious, the truth is European teams are far more interested in playing each other. Any game against one of the 6 nations teams will sell out Cardiff, whether it's a mickey mouse world game against Ireland ful of third choice players, hell even Japan and Fiji have come close over the years.

I'm in agreement with them. I think that the season structure as it is can't be sustained. It's not beneficial to NH rugby and until something changes we aren't going to compete.

Shifty wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:The Lions only come to new Zealand about once a decade, whereas we send the All Blacks up to you every year, religiously, without fail. the cost to "supply' the lions is spread across 4 countries, whereas the ABs are the product of one country.

Yes but we play you 3 times in November in 4 years, and when we do tour there the European teams play 3 tests, so it's 3 each per world cup cycle. So basically it's even, Wales tour to you will cover the 3 tests you will play against us before the next world cup.

The debate is moot, the Celtic teams can and will not accept any 50/50 proposals because they have their own struggles in trying to fund a professional game. In the northern hemisphere we built bigger stadiums to increase revenue, maybe New Zealand should think about doing that. Although the All Blacks are prestigious, the truth is European teams are far more interested in playing each other. Any game against one of the 6 nations teams will sell out Cardiff, whether it's a mickey mouse world game against Ireland ful of third choice players, hell even Japan and Fiji have come close over the years.

Just out of curiosity Shifty, are ticket prices the same for a Wales versus Ireland/Japan/Fiji game the same as an All Blacks game?

mckay1402 wrote:I'm in agreement with them.  I think that the season structure as it is can't be sustained.  It's not beneficial to NH rugby and until something changes we aren't going to compete.

How can it change?
Do you think Australia will move to our season knowing they'd be going head to head with cricket AND rugby league?

It's already been stated that most rugby teams CAN'T move to summer rugby in the UK as they share grounds with cricket clubs and you can't be having rugby played and cricket at the same time. Secondly most clubs have their matches on grounds owned by councils and most won't allow summer rugby. The idea was put forward years ago and was dropped almost straight away.

People are talking like this is a new debate when this topic has been done to death year on year. England AND France are structured in such a way that they run the professional game in their countries via their professional club teams organisation body, with the Union running and amateur game. The Celts and Italy fund professional rugby through income from their national teams, sharing their income won't be acceptable, as they are already treading water with French clubs trying to poach their players.
Australia won't accept any seasonal changes, while UK clubs can't due to leasing issues.

I'm amazed New Zealand are even stupid enough to try and force this issue, it's a bit like putting a gun to your own head and telling everyone you'll pull the trigger. Pretty much everyone will just shrug their shoulders and tell them to carry on.

Shifty wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:I'm in agreement with them.  I think that the season structure as it is can't be sustained.  It's not beneficial to NH rugby and until something changes we aren't going to compete.

How can it change?
Do you think Australia will move to our season knowing they'd be going head to head with cricket AND rugby league?

It's already been stated that most rugby teams CAN'T move to summer rugby in the UK as they share grounds with cricket clubs and you can't be having rugby played and cricket at the same time. Secondly most clubs have their matches on grounds owned by councils and most won't allow summer rugby. The idea was put forward years ago and was dropped almost straight away.

People are talking like this is a new debate when this topic has been done to death year on year. England AND France are structured in such a way that they run the professional game in their countries via their professional club teams organisation body, with the Union running and amateur game. The Celts and Italy fund professional rugby through income from their national teams, sharing their income won't be acceptable, as they are already treading water with French clubs trying to poach their players.
Australia won't accept any seasonal changes, while UK clubs can't due to leasing issues.

I'm amazed New Zealand are even stupid enough to try and force this issue, it's a bit like putting a gun to your own head and telling everyone you'll pull the trigger. Pretty much everyone will just shrug their shoulders and tell them to carry on.

Surely shifty you have to at least try? Rugby League in England used to be a sport confined to the Northern English Winter months, they have, maybe with the motivation that comes with desperation transferred Super league to basically a summer sport. The standard of Rugby League in England has risen markedly since they are playing/training on better surfaces/better light and in a climate that all supporters of the game find far more conducive.

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.

From an English perspective, 22+2 league games and 6+3 continental games a season is too many, and is also unbalanced in terms of getting the best players together to drive up standards. You only have to look at the line-ups for the Bath vs Newcastle game tonight to know that despite being in the Premiership, this was not a first class game. I think England need to get more "first class games" and drag their top players (Internationals) out of the "second class games" - so a mimicking of the Super Rugby / ITM Cup (or equivalent) set-up NZ and the SH do - and I'd love it if the rest of the Northern Hemisphere adopted the same change.

Personally, I think a franchised European competition similar to Super Rugby or the NFL uninterrupted from Feb/March to June and 3 away tests in July would be the best way to go, and you could scrap the break in Super Rugby. Focus on 7s in August and then play a Six Nations in September / October and an Autumn series in November. Domestic competitions would run from September to November and could be done by way of regional pool stages and knockouts.

If lower tiers is an issue, you could almost ring-fence the professional game and have the RFU Championship become the top level of Amateur Rugby and played from September to April as it is now, with play-offs finishing before the knock-outs of the European Competition commencing, so you can market the Championship and it doesn't clash with the play-offs in earlier rounds. You can then play a domestic 7s circuit if desired during the summer to increase the reaches of the game, but you then wouldn't have to move the domestic season at grassroots level and you wouldn't have to worry about schools.

Tier 1 players would therefore play Continental and International Rugby.
Tier 2 players would play Continental and domestic professional rugby.
Tier 3 players would play RFU Championship and could be drafted in to fill in the domestic professional competitions teams in the early part of the season.
Tier 4 players would play National One etc.

I know it's not NZ's goal to force this situation, but if they end up making it happen I'll set up a GoFundMe page for them.

Ultimately a top down Union structure will not compete with a bottom up structure through professional clubs, over any length of time.

Hugely restrictive closed shops do have to innovate but to go after the finances of Unions who dont fund clubs but at the same time do not have the advantages of control over players - is a little rich.

Professional sport is brutal when it comes to finance and that won't change.

aucklandlaurie wrote:Surely shifty you have to at least try? Rugby League in England used to be a sport confined to the Northern English Winter months, they have, maybe with the motivation that comes with desperation transferred Super league to basically a summer sport. The standard of Rugby League in England has risen markedly since they are playing/training on better surfaces/better light and in a climate that all supporters of the game find far more conducive.

I think the game has been professional since 1995 and this has been discussed every season since 1995, and it's always the same sticking points for this discussion.  Neither the French or English clubs want to reduce the size of the league.  Most clubs in the Northern hemisphere aren't allowed to use their grounds outside September to April.  

Truth be told only New Zealand want change and frankly it's all for their benefit, trying to take money off other Unions who redeveloped their own stadiums to increase revenue, while doing nothing themselves.  They move their rugby games all over their country to small stadiums which cuts their own throat.  Then blame everyone else because their a small country in the middle of nowhere in geography terms.  

The NZRFU have a terrible habit of going about things the wrong way and have done for years, they have picked on Northern hemisphere clubs using the name All Blacks, and thankfully Neath and the WRU managed to knock them on their back sides on that issue, threatening to stop them using their own name, as Neath were actually using it 30 odd years before anyone knew what a rugby ball was in New Zealand.

It might be better for World rugby as a whole if New Zealand stopped throwing their weight around, and just accept the fact that in most professional sports some countries are bigger than others and can generate more money, there is no point trying to bully the Australians into changing the time of year rugby is played.  South Africa are a monster commercially and don't really need New Zealand.  Truth be told the 6 Nations would probably accept South Africa into the competition the first chance they got, and many overtures have been made to them to join competitions over the years.  European rugby is also self sufficient and could easily survive losing the June and November test series.  They could easily increase revenue by simply having another 6 Nation in November, so we play each other twice each year home and away.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Ultimately a top down Union structure will not compete with a bottom up structure through professional clubs, over any length of time.

Hugely restrictive closed shops do have to innovate but to go after the finances of Unions who dont fund clubs but at the same time do not have the advantages of control over players - is a little rich.

Professional sport is brutal when it comes to finance and that won't change.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I know a top down structure is usually very inefficient in terms of how countries are run (eg socialism/communism) but these unions are basically run like companies. The key ingredient is allowing competition. Looking at Irelands model, the IRFU controls everything but the provinces are competing against each other. At the moment Connacht have got things right while Munster are in a pit. Because theres competition between the provinces, Munster's inefficiency is clearly visible.


NZ's top down model has helped them be firmly up there as the number 1 rank by far. The problem for NZ is not how they run the game but outside forces. They're under enormous pressure to increase wages because the big European clubs have loads of money. The French and English markets happen to be much bigger than NZ's.


The solution IMO would be to recoup the money from the players earnings or something similar. There has to be some kind of reward for producing players. Maybe introduce a transfer fee or tax their wages 5 - 10%. Start by getting every young players to sign a contract. If they want to play professional rugby, they must agree to a percentage of their wages going to the NZRU, should said player move abroad. They players don't have to sign it but won't be picked up by any professional rugby team in NZ. Its basically a playing career contract on top of their normal contracts.


People will complain about human rights but nothings free. NZRU have to spend money developing these players and they're given the option to take it or leave it.

profitius wrote:I'm not sure I agree with that. I know a top down structure is usually very inefficient in terms of how countries are run (eg socialism/communism) but these unions are basically run like companies. The key ingredient is allowing competition. Looking at Irelands model, the IRFU controls everything but the provinces are competing against each other. At the moment Connacht have got things right while Munster are in a pit. Because theres competition between the provinces, Munster's inefficiency is clearly visible.  


NZ's top down model has helped them be firmly up there as the number 1 rank by far. The problem for NZ is not how they run the game but outside forces. They're under enormous pressure to increase wages because the big European clubs have loads of money. The French and English markets happen to be much bigger than NZ's.


The solution IMO would be to recoup the money from the players earnings or something similar. There has to be some kind of reward for producing players. Maybe introduce a transfer fee or tax their wages 5 - 10%. Start by getting every young players to sign a contract. If they want to play professional rugby, they must agree to a percentage of their wages going to the NZRU, should said player move abroad. They players don't have to sign it but won't be picked up by any professional rugby team in NZ. Its basically a playing career contract on top of their normal contracts.


People will complain about human rights but nothings free. NZRU have to spend money developing these players and they're given the option to take it or leave it.

That isn't legal. Transfer fees aren't legal in the EU either if the player is over age 24. Players aren't slaves and should be allowed to develop their own talents and earn a wage.
How would you feel if you did a apprenticeship with a company but left to work with another and still had to pay a portion of your wages to the first? Sheer lunacy. the company you had your first job with technically developed your skills, yet I bet you'd loathe to give them 5-10% of your wage!

Also your missing the point, the NZRFU has very little to do with players learning to play rugby, this is done through tax payers funded schools, and grown volunteer adults giving their free time away at grass roots clubs because they enjoy doing so. All Unions actually do is cherry pick the best players from age groups and pick them for internationals.

Shifty wrote:

profitius wrote:I'm not sure I agree with that. I know a top down structure is usually very inefficient in terms of how countries are run (eg socialism/communism) but these unions are basically run like companies. The key ingredient is allowing competition. Looking at Irelands model, the IRFU controls everything but the provinces are competing against each other. At the moment Connacht have got things right while Munster are in a pit. Because theres competition between the provinces, Munster's inefficiency is clearly visible.  


NZ's top down model has helped them be firmly up there as the number 1 rank by far. The problem for NZ is not how they run the game but outside forces. They're under enormous pressure to increase wages because the big European clubs have loads of money. The French and English markets happen to be much bigger than NZ's.


The solution IMO would be to recoup the money from the players earnings or something similar. There has to be some kind of reward for producing players. Maybe introduce a transfer fee or tax their wages 5 - 10%. Start by getting every young players to sign a contract. If they want to play professional rugby, they must agree to a percentage of their wages going to the NZRU, should said player move abroad. They players don't have to sign it but won't be picked up by any professional rugby team in NZ. Its basically a playing career contract on top of their normal contracts.


People will complain about human rights but nothings free. NZRU have to spend money developing these players and they're given the option to take it or leave it.

That isn't legal.  Transfer fees aren't legal in the EU either if the player is over age 24.  Players aren't slaves and should be allowed to develop their own talents and earn a wage.  
How would you feel if you did a apprenticeship with a company but left to work with another and still had to pay a portion of your wages to the first?  Sheer lunacy. the company you had your first job with technically developed your skills,  yet I bet you'd loathe to give them 5-10% of your wage!  

Also your missing the point, the NZRFU has very little to do with players learning to play rugby, this is done through tax payers funded schools, and grown volunteer adults giving their free time away at grass roots clubs because they enjoy doing so.  All Unions actually do is cherry pick the best players from age groups and pick them for internationals.  

Not sure the ultimate answer, which is likely a complicated number of steps.  However, the macroeconomics are obvious:  Continued financial imbalance between the top countries will destabilise Rugby in the long run.  Some rational steps will need to be taken to somehow limit total expenditures on players to ensure a competitive balance across countries.  It is naive, of course, to expect or even to push for a Global Salary Cap.  The flip side, though will not work in the long term, so middle ground must be found.  It is to everyone's benefit for NZ, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Italy to retain a reasonable amount of their top talent to ensure long term domestic viability.  This applies to the national teams as well as the domestic leagues.  If there is sufficient salary balance, we might even see some Brits and French, outside of James Haskell and Frédéric Michalak play down south.  This will improve the players and improve the game.  

One of the big questions is how to assess revenue, and revenue versus operational and developmental expense.  The ABs have a strong revenue stream unlike any other nation, but limited financial resources at home.  How to balance that compared to England and France, for instance.  Also the completely different business models in many countries:  Ireland and NZ seem closer to each other,  but Wales is different, England is far different.  Other countries are somewhere in between.  

That said, the logic for some amount of salary balancing is simple, clear, obvious.  Therefore, given Rugby's leadership at this moment, it is likely impossible.

Doc, thats a very good point raising the leadership of Rugby.

I personally think Steve Tew is right on time to raise this subject now, and let some other countries start absorbing whats going on.

Noises coming out of South Africa are that they support New Zealand on this issue, Lapasset has been a good chairman of the IRB/World Rugby getting rugby into the olympics etc, but he has never been able to address the Global season issue. With Lapasset standing down in four months time, the New Zealand intention ( with the support of South Africa and Argentina) is that Bill Beaumont will take over as chairman of World rugby in July, and then matters can get on course.

I must admit I did like the part where New Zealand stated they don't like the fact that Northern Hemisphere teams are uncompetitive when they go on tour there. When have they ever been competitive?
You take 2-3 players out of Wales and Ireland and they have little chance at all, if they had any to begin with. I think it's only France in 1994 and one Lions tour in the 70's that have ever won a test series in New Zealand.

Only six countries have ever beaten New Zealand in their history, Australia, South Africa, Wales, England, France, and Zimbabwe. It may sound odd but Zimbabwe (then called Rhodesia), beat New Zealand over 2 games, they drew the first game 3-3, and won the second 10-8, in 1949. Hence winning the series.
Along with three representative teams, the Lions, Barbarians and World XV.

On this issue, I just don't see what New Zealand expect when all options have been considered for many years. Maybe New Zealand could raise more revenue when they tour in November by playing mid week matches?

If you think that playing more matches, as in mid week games is the answer, then you're confirming what Steve Tew is saying, the Northern Hemisphere members have to address the Global season issue.

If one was to suggest an interim process Why not move the International window to mid August/September?

Laurie,
I agree Beaumont is a good man. And he has pretty good ideas about the issue Rugby faces. Still, I think, there needs to be desire by enough of the the stakeholders to actually want change. The politics will be thick and deep as each will want it's piece of flesh. Hopefully, Bill can sort through it all and obtain agreement for a reasonable way forwards. It needs to be done.

Shifty, I think the answers are wrapped up together with the global calendar, compensation for each union, and so on. Not sure anyone has wanted in the past to tackle all the issues together. The June Internationals are clearly not workable at this point in time.

Doc, Bill Beaumont has big support in New Zealand and Tew will support him through this issue.

So my understanding, in summary is that if as an England supporter I pay a for a ticket at Twicks I will be happy for half the proceeds to fund the opposition who chose to have control of players (some who play more for the ABs than their franchise) and that one hemisphere will have to move their season towards summer rugby.

Bill Beaumont will have a big game on his hands if that is what Tew is teeing him up for.

If BB was able to somehow achieve was this then you would potentially level the playing field in terms of finances and leave other advantages or disadvantages to be built into structures.

However professional sport in the hands of many rather than the few will generally be far more robust and last longer as viable activity.

To be fair I think Tew would recognise this but works with what he has and hopes to use the ABs status as more deserving than others. That wouldn't be the first time a market leader believed they should have priority status.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
If you think that playing more matches, as in mid week games is the answer, then you're confirming what Steve Tew is saying, the Northern Hemisphere members have to address the Global season issue.

If one was to suggest an interim process Why not move the International window to mid August/September?

Wales work around their money trouble by playing more internationals as thats the way they generate money. The point I was making is that if New Zealand need more money they could play mid week games during their November tour. New Zealand have the depth to easily beat teams like Scotland and Italy in midweek, before taking on the stronger teams on the weekend.

Shifty wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
If you think that playing more matches, as in mid week games is the answer, then you're confirming what Steve Tew is saying, the Northern Hemisphere members have to address the Global season issue.

If one was to suggest an interim process Why not move the International window to mid August/September?

Wales work around their money trouble by playing more internationals as thats the way they generate money. The point I was making is that if New Zealand need more money they could play mid week games during their November tour. New Zealand have the depth to easily beat teams like Scotland and Italy in midweek, before taking on the stronger teams on the weekend.

Along that line of thought, New Zealand would probably do better to play Wales mid week, in the window, and play a two or three test series against Ireland in both Dublin (1)and Chicago(2) and the terms on the profit share can be a private deal between only New Zealand and Ireland, running outside the June window.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Shifty wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
If you think that playing more matches, as in mid week games is the answer, then you're confirming what Steve Tew is saying, the Northern Hemisphere members have to address the Global season issue.

If one was to suggest an interim process Why not move the International window to mid August/September?

Wales work around their money trouble by playing more internationals as thats the way they generate money.  The point I was making is that if New Zealand need more money they could play mid week games during their November tour.  New Zealand have the depth to easily beat teams like Scotland and Italy in midweek, before taking on the stronger teams on the weekend.

Along that line of thought, New Zealand would probably do better to play Wales mid week, in the window, and play a two or three test series against Ireland in both Dublin (1)and Chicago(2) and the terms on the profit share can be a private deal between only New Zealand and Ireland, running outside the June window.

I think that's a possible way forward for countries hampered by stadium size or crowd numbers. But you'd have to be sure that it would outweigh what you're giving up.

The June series are a joke and always have been. Tew & Co wanted to have three-test series yet not one of the matches has been won by a touring side to date.

The complaint about NH rugby unions always proving low quality/second team touring sides is also misleading and inaccurate.

The season structure is wrong and until it changes, NH teams won't be competitive down south.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Doc, Bill Beaumont has big support in New Zealand and Tew will support him through this issue.

I didn't know that. I think it's a good thing because Beaumont does have vision (amazing for a forward!). I absolutely agree he seems the best man for the job. He appears to have credibility where most people don't.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Shifty wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
If you think that playing more matches, as in mid week games is the answer, then you're confirming what Steve Tew is saying, the Northern Hemisphere members have to address the Global season issue.

If one was to suggest an interim process Why not move the International window to mid August/September?

Wales work around their money trouble by playing more internationals as thats the way they generate money.  The point I was making is that if New Zealand need more money they could play mid week games during their November tour.  New Zealand have the depth to easily beat teams like Scotland and Italy in midweek, before taking on the stronger teams on the weekend.

Along that line of thought, New Zealand would probably do better to play Wales mid week, in the window, and play a two or three test series against Ireland in both Dublin (1)and Chicago(2) and the terms on the profit share can be a private deal between only New Zealand and Ireland, running outside the June window.

That's fine too and sensible, Cardiff would sell out on a Wednesday or Tuesday for the All Blacks. No harm in that at all. Other options you could consider is having your own 6 nations, with the 4 nations you currently have and possibly adding Japan and maybe the USA for future marketing and television money.

Provided New Zealand brought a few extra squad members there is no reason to include mid week games, the Lions do it for example. While Wales have played Eastern Province Kings on the Tuesday before their last South Africa tour, and will also play Wellington Chiefs on the Tuesday before the second test on our New Zealand tour, which is also in Wellington. The huge advantage that New Zealand have is travel distances are small between the old 5 Nstions. You can fly from Cardiff and be in Paris in 45 minutes, London in 30 minutes, Edinburgh in 30 minutes, Dublin 70 minutes. Rome is 2 hours 30 minutes from Cardiff. It's not really much travelling in all honesty.

Failing that I suggest this:



We move New Zealand off the South East Coast the UK.  It makes sense, New Zealand is cold, wet, they have lots of hills and mountains and a lot of sheep.  Wales is  cold, wet, they have lots of hills and mountains and a lot of sheep.  Perfect. I thought you'd of preffered the nicer southern weather of Spain to the colder snow of Scotland.

Shifty wrote:Failing that I suggest this:



We move New Zealand off the South East Coast the UK.  It makes sense, New Zealand is cold, wet, they have lots of hills and mountains and a lot of sheep.  Wales is  cold, wet, they have lots of hills and mountains and a lot of sheep.  Perfect.  I thought you'd of preffered the nicer southern weather of Spain to the colder snow of Scotland.  

Unless France has become New Zealand in your graphic, I would say that relocation is off the south-west coast of Ireland.

If you're going to move countries around, at least get your directions right or else you'll confuse all the pilots.

Pot Hale wrote:

Shifty wrote:Failing that I suggest this:



We move New Zealand off the South East Coast the UK.  It makes sense, New Zealand is cold, wet, they have lots of hills and mountains and a lot of sheep.  Wales is  cold, wet, they have lots of hills and mountains and a lot of sheep.  Perfect.  I thought you'd of preffered the nicer southern weather of Spain to the colder snow of Scotland.  

Unless France has become New Zealand in your graphic, I would say that relocation is off the south-west coast of Ireland.

If you're going to move countries around, at least get your directions right or else you'll confuse all the pilots.  

Oh yeah! Gotcha!
South WEST it is
I'm not sure if I sunk a few Spanish islands in the process but we'll worry about that later.

Shifty wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Shifty wrote:Failing that I suggest this:



We move New Zealand off the South East Coast the UK.  It makes sense, New Zealand is cold, wet, they have lots of hills and mountains and a lot of sheep.  Wales is  cold, wet, they have lots of hills and mountains and a lot of sheep.  Perfect.  I thought you'd of preffered the nicer southern weather of Spain to the colder snow of Scotland.  

Unless France has become New Zealand in your graphic, I would say that relocation is off the south-west coast of Ireland.

If you're going to move countries around, at least get your directions right or else you'll confuse all the pilots.  

Oh yeah!  Gotcha!
South WEST it is
I'm not sure if I sunk a few Spanish islands in the process but we'll worry about that later.

I think this is a brilliant idea. Amazing no one thought of this before. Should make the price of wool lower. Only question is whether New Zealand will want to adopt the Pound. I think the pilots coming across the Atlantic will be fine: Once the Air traffic Controllers start speaking with a French accent they will know they have to turn around. No biggie.

doctor_grey wrote:

Shifty wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Shifty wrote:Failing that I suggest this:



We move New Zealand off the South East Coast the UK.  It makes sense, New Zealand is cold, wet, they have lots of hills and mountains and a lot of sheep.  Wales is  cold, wet, they have lots of hills and mountains and a lot of sheep.  Perfect.  I thought you'd of preffered the nicer southern weather of Spain to the colder snow of Scotland.  

Unless France has become New Zealand in your graphic, I would say that relocation is off the south-west coast of Ireland.

If you're going to move countries around, at least get your directions right or else you'll confuse all the pilots.  

Oh yeah!  Gotcha!
South WEST it is
I'm not sure if I sunk a few Spanish islands in the process but we'll worry about that later.

I think this is a brilliant idea.  Amazing no one thought of this before.  Should make the price of wool lower.  Only question is whether New Zealand will want to adopt the Pound.  I think the pilots coming across the Atlantic will be fine:  Once the Air traffic Controllers start speaking with a French accent they will know they have to turn around.  No biggie.  

Na they can have the Euro

Ok change of tack we've said what we CAN'T do, now lets see what might be able to happen.  So in a non world cup year it would seem August to November might be the best place for the international calendar.  The 4 nations starts in the middle of August, to the first weekend of October, while the Northern Hemisphere internationals start in November.  

Super rugby goes from February to July.  While the NH club season is from September to May.  I think if you told the NH clubs that they wouldn't lose their players for the 6 nations, they'd be hapy to let them during the first few weeks of the season.

If we wanted a merged international season, we need a 12 team tournament, as there is an 11 week international calendar in the world game, in a 42 week season.  5 weeks for the 6 nations, 3 weeks for the international tour, and 3 weeks for the November series.

The competition will be played over 2 years, with each team playing each other once, then alternating the folloing year in a home and away format.

Round 1 - Aug 20
Round 2 - Aug 27
Round 3 - Sept 3
Round 4 - Sept 10
Round 5 - Sept 17
Round 6 - Sept 24
Round 7 - Oct 1
Round 8 - Oct 8
Round 9 - Oct 15
Round 10 - Oct 22
Round 11 - Oct 29

Division 1
1 New Zealand
2 South Africa
3 Australia
4 Argentina
5 England
6 Wales
7 Ireland
8 France
9 Scotland
10 Italy
11 Japan
------------
12 Fiji

Division 2
1 Georgia
-------------
2 Tonga
3 Samoa
4 Romania
5 USA
6 Canada
7 Uruguay
8 Russia
9 Namibia
10 Spain
11 Germany
---------------
12 Hong Kong

Shifty wrote:

profitius wrote:I'm not sure I agree with that. I know a top down structure is usually very inefficient in terms of how countries are run (eg socialism/communism) but these unions are basically run like companies. The key ingredient is allowing competition. Looking at Irelands model, the IRFU controls everything but the provinces are competing against each other. At the moment Connacht have got things right while Munster are in a pit. Because theres competition between the provinces, Munster's inefficiency is clearly visible.  


NZ's top down model has helped them be firmly up there as the number 1 rank by far. The problem for NZ is not how they run the game but outside forces. They're under enormous pressure to increase wages because the big European clubs have loads of money. The French and English markets happen to be much bigger than NZ's.


The solution IMO would be to recoup the money from the players earnings or something similar. There has to be some kind of reward for producing players. Maybe introduce a transfer fee or tax their wages 5 - 10%. Start by getting every young players to sign a contract. If they want to play professional rugby, they must agree to a percentage of their wages going to the NZRU, should said player move abroad. They players don't have to sign it but won't be picked up by any professional rugby team in NZ. Its basically a playing career contract on top of their normal contracts.


People will complain about human rights but nothings free. NZRU have to spend money developing these players and they're given the option to take it or leave it.

That isn't legal.  Transfer fees aren't legal in the EU either if the player is over age 24.  Players aren't slaves and should be allowed to develop their own talents and earn a wage.  
How would you feel if you did a apprenticeship with a company but left to work with another and still had to pay a portion of your wages to the first?  Sheer lunacy. the company you had your first job with technically developed your skills,  yet I bet you'd loathe to give them 5-10% of your wage!  

Also your missing the point, the NZRFU has very little to do with players learning to play rugby, this is done through tax payers funded schools, and grown volunteer adults giving their free time away at grass roots clubs because they enjoy doing so.  All Unions actually do is cherry pick the best players from age groups and pick them for internationals.

And who makes up the NZRU?

I'll answer for you, those volunteers who give their time free of charge.

As for the legality of putting a bond on players. Army/Navy people sign up for so many years (i think 12) and can't leave if they have been put through college.

Sin é wrote:

Shifty wrote:

profitius wrote:I'm not sure I agree with that. I know a top down structure is usually very inefficient in terms of how countries are run (eg socialism/communism) but these unions are basically run like companies. The key ingredient is allowing competition. Looking at Irelands model, the IRFU controls everything but the provinces are competing against each other. At the moment Connacht have got things right while Munster are in a pit. Because theres competition between the provinces, Munster's inefficiency is clearly visible.  


NZ's top down model has helped them be firmly up there as the number 1 rank by far. The problem for NZ is not how they run the game but outside forces. They're under enormous pressure to increase wages because the big European clubs have loads of money. The French and English markets happen to be much bigger than NZ's.


The solution IMO would be to recoup the money from the players earnings or something similar. There has to be some kind of reward for producing players. Maybe introduce a transfer fee or tax their wages 5 - 10%. Start by getting every young players to sign a contract. If they want to play professional rugby, they must agree to a percentage of their wages going to the NZRU, should said player move abroad. They players don't have to sign it but won't be picked up by any professional rugby team in NZ. Its basically a playing career contract on top of their normal contracts.


People will complain about human rights but nothings free. NZRU have to spend money developing these players and they're given the option to take it or leave it.

That isn't legal.  Transfer fees aren't legal in the EU either if the player is over age 24.  Players aren't slaves and should be allowed to develop their own talents and earn a wage.  
How would you feel if you did a apprenticeship with a company but left to work with another and still had to pay a portion of your wages to the first?  Sheer lunacy. the company you had your first job with technically developed your skills,  yet I bet you'd loathe to give them 5-10% of your wage!  

Also your missing the point, the NZRFU has very little to do with players learning to play rugby, this is done through tax payers funded schools, and grown volunteer adults giving their free time away at grass roots clubs because they enjoy doing so.  All Unions actually do is cherry pick the best players from age groups and pick them for internationals.

And who makes up the NZRU?

I'll answer for you, those volunteers who give their time free of charge.

As for the legality of putting a bond on players. Army/Navy people sign up for so many years (i think 12) and can't leave if they have been put through college.

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.

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.

Shifty wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Shifty wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Shifty wrote:Failing that I suggest this:



We move New Zealand off the South East Coast the UK.  It makes sense, New Zealand is cold, wet, they have lots of hills and mountains and a lot of sheep.  Wales is  cold, wet, they have lots of hills and mountains and a lot of sheep.  Perfect.  I thought you'd of preffered the nicer southern weather of Spain to the colder snow of Scotland.  

Unless France has become New Zealand in your graphic, I would say that relocation is off the south-west coast of Ireland.

If you're going to move countries around, at least get your directions right or else you'll confuse all the pilots.  

Oh yeah!  Gotcha!
South WEST it is
I'm not sure if I sunk a few Spanish islands in the process but we'll worry about that later.

I think this is a brilliant idea.  Amazing no one thought of this before.  Should make the price of wool lower.  Only question is whether New Zealand will want to adopt the Pound.  I think the pilots coming across the Atlantic will be fine:  Once the Air traffic Controllers start speaking with a French accent they will know they have to turn around.  No biggie.  

Na they can have the Euro  

That's not nice.....................

aucklandlaurie wrote:Just out of curiosity Shifty, are ticket prices the same for a Wales versus Ireland/Japan/Fiji game the same as an All Blacks game?

Sorry I missed this. I doubt it, but in all honesty I haven't been to a Wales game since 2008? or so when Wales beat Japan 98-0. I tend to stick to club games.

Shifty wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Just out of curiosity Shifty, are ticket prices the same for a Wales versus Ireland/Japan/Fiji game the same as an All Blacks game?

Sorry I missed this. I doubt it, but in all honesty I haven't been to a Wales game since 2008? or so when Wales beat Japan 98-0. I tend to stick to club games.

I doubt it also, thats why you cant compare apples with watermelons.

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.