Are New Zealand getting too big for their boots ?

First topic message reminder :

Over the last few weeks I have been reading the news on the web and have been following with a lot of interest all the noise coming out of New Zealand. Now I know I get a lot of flak, just because I read the Western Mail/Wales On-Line, but they are running with this issue that New Zealand want a global season, and are threatening to "go it alone" if they do not get their own way.

Now, how do you think this would work for them ? Would everybody else boycott them ? I would suppose they would still play in the RC but what about when they play tests against northern hemisphere sides ? After all that is where the money is. The claim is, that the RFU are the main blockers when it comes to this global season. I am on the side of keeping things as they are. Yes New Zealand are the best in the world, but that does not give them any God given rights to dictate to the rest of the world on how rugby should be scheduled. I am of the opinion, that we should call the bluff of the NZRFU and see how far they get if they do go it alone. If they want to auction off their team to play the highest bidder, then good luck to them, lets see how they go with it. If New Zealand want an international season, then perhaps they can fall in line with the NH.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/blacks-bosses-getting-big-boots-11690978

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/former-wales-coach-steve-hansen-11715746

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/hansen-wants-international-season-by-2020/

aucklandlaurie wrote:How often do you guys come down and visit us as it is?

SANZAR pressed for the current three Test series format, so you are getting exactly what you asked for. Difficult to see how the Six Nations sides have been anything other than accommodating.

Fair Call RF, but I was actually replying to TrailApes remarks regarding Wales, Ireland and Scotland not being reimbursed for  when they tour here, and they could stay home and make far more money just playing at Twickenham, The Millenium and Murrayfield.

But the reality, I think, is that would never work.  The Six Nations is great simply because we play each other only once per year.  I know it seems like more because we talk about each other for the rest of the year.  I am pretty sure we would get tired of playing each other more than once.  

I am not opposed to some form of revenue sharing, but it goes both ways.  NH sides should be compensated for travelling down south and SH sides should be compensated for coming up north.  It works that way in most sports.

We don't need common playing months across the globe.  What we need is appropriate and mandatory rest times (off-season) and International seasons which do overlap. Anything more is frankly a non-starter either in the NH or SH.  Unfortunately is this game of World Domination of the Management of Rugby no one wants to appear to be a sissy and offer the initial compromise.  And compromise is inevitable and necessary..

IRB[WRB]NH has more votes than SH fact,England has more votes than
anyone else[unless it`s changed recently].
Sharing costs for ALL tests makes sense,a season where clubs are in the
act of demanding.
There players return to there clubs whilist the RWC doesn`t,Club comps
interfereing with tours,Lions,or RWC doesn't.
Surely it is possible to arrange seasons to avoid this which is the proposal
as I see it.

Would Tonga, Samoa etc be able to sharee the costs of the big stadia or do you just mean profit when they play there? It's their not there playerrs by the way.

emack2 wrote:IRB[WRB]NH has more votes than SH fact,England has more votes than
anyone else[unless it`s changed recently].
Sharing costs for ALL tests makes sense,a season where clubs are in the
act of demanding.
There players return to there clubs whilist the RWC doesn`t,Club comps
interfereing with tours,Lions,or RWC doesn't.
Surely it is possible to arrange seasons to avoid this which is the proposal
as I see it.

What does sharing costs of tests mean? NZ say travel North to play England and they have costs. In return England travel South and play NZ and they have costs. Surely these costs are not that wildly different.

I thought what Tew is after is not sharing costs but sharing income. In essence he is trying to grab a share of the larger income of NH countries which results in part from their investment in large stadia. NZ have chosen to play their home games in small regional stadia rather than building a decent stadium in Auckland. That was their choice taken for good internal political reasons I am sure. They should not expect anybody else to compensate them for it.

The reality is the money is in the north, for a number of reasons.

So the RFU saying why should they change something that works with full stadia et all is about as close minded and selfish as those that are being accused.

However the SANZAAR is damaging rugby in the Southern Hemisphere by what they are doing as well.

They are building a Super Rugby tornament that has grown into a convoluted mess and it is n't going to get better.

Due to travel issues and time zones the Super Rugby tournament will never be viable as a massive tournament with teams competing from so many continents and time zones.

Less is more.

They need to understand that when it comes to global seasons it is never going to happen.

The main reason they want a global season is to have better access to their players who are leaving in droves to overseas clubs.

The reality is clubs have more disposable cash than 95% of the rugby unions so test rugby is sucking the hind boobie of the cow, and pretty soon will lose the last bit of hold.

Test rugby will ultimately die out and you are likely to see three competitions only and no tours.

The World Cup, the six nations and the rugby championship.

Rugby has niw become like most sports all about entertainment for the masses, success is measured in your wallet size and those who don't have thick wallets will lose out.

Some will continue to live in their bubble of bought and paid for mercenaries whilst the rest will just try to hang on.

If SANZAAR want to have any chance of surviving and being able to compete financially they need to look at a super 12 and protect their top 120 players each.

They are never going to compete with quantity.

Pay fewer players more and run super rugby as the best tournament in terms of quality in the world.

That is the only way.

Given the big 3 down south are not adverse to having mercenaries themselves probably not helpful to just point at the NH and blame big money.

Knew you would bite. Where are these mercenaries?

Bite? You mean reply on a discussion forum? The Beast for one. Still can't spell his name without looking it up. To be fair that issue does need raising by WR as well and will only be sorted by raising the period of time for qulification.

Yep, for one. That is mercenary. As opposed to hundreds of mercenaries

One or 100 demonstrates the same acceptance of a process. SA seem to be happy until the shoe is on the other foot. Fans want change more than any unions it seems, but WR does need to confront it to stop teams like SA paying more for foreign talent.

This is how easy it is for mercenaries to be poached to play for the Springboks.

wiki wrote:Although Mtawarira was fully eligible to play for South Africa under IRB rules, his Zimbabwean nationality was a sticking point in 2009 and 2010. South Africa has a policy of only allowing its nationals to represent the country, although it has been somewhat flexible; the South African Rugby Union (SARU) officially cleared him to play with the Boks in the November 2009 Tests, after receiving clearance from the country's sports minister Makhenkesi Stofile.[4]

More recently, his citizenship was a minor political issue in the country. In January 2010, Buthana Komphela, an ANC member of the National Assembly and chair of its sports committee, publicly threatened to charge the SARU with "illegally" fielding Mtawarira and have him deported to Zimbabwe.[5] Shortly after the threat, Mtawarira told the Sunday Independent,

“ I am a South African at heart. I love this country. It has become my home. It is everything to me. Wearing the green and gold of the Springboks is a huge honour for me. That jersey is part of me. The green and gold flows in my blood. I feel just as much pride as any other guy in the team.[6] ”

Later in the year, the South African government reaffirmed its policy that only South African nationals would be allowed to represent the country in international competition, which made Mtawarira unavailable for selection to the Springboks in the June Tests; by that time, his application for South African citizenship had been tied up in red tape. On 25 June 2010, the SARU announced that Minister of Home Affairs Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma had granted Mtawarira's request for South African citizenship. The immediate effect was to make him eligible for selection in the 2010 Tri Nations.[2]

1 and 100 is the same. SERIOUSLY?

Yup. If someone is willing to accept a situation they should be willing to accept the same thing can happen elsewhere, or do you want special circumstances just for yourself?

How on earth is it the same?

Recruiting hundreds of players from the Southern hemisphere is the same as a guy coming to play pro rugby in SA of his own accord?

Your bubble is made to fit , eh?

It's exactly the same. Same rules he's qualifying under. You're happy to take him but unhappy to lose some players abroad. What's good for the goose. Personally I hope they do look to review the qulaification process but ultimately I don't think it will stop a lot of player movement to other countries anyway.

No, not same rules, he has to qualify as a citizen before he can represent us, nit a three year residebcy rule.

And nit the same as we have thousands to pick from, we don't recruit or poach players from anywhere.

As opposed to what you guys do, if you think the situation is the same you are truly deluded

Oh right, and that doesn't apply to SA players coming to Europe? Sorry you're just sore about it but happy to take the benefit when it happens to you. Incidentally you really need to separates what clubs do and how players are eventually picked to play for countries.

TBF SA politics is doing A lot of damage to Rugg in SA IMO.

And no one can do anything about that.

And again France is the main issue and even they are combating it don't try and lob in the Irish, Welsh and Scots into this.

Even in England the poaching isn't as big as people like to believe down south, as I said If England was to do a 5 team primier competition those 5 teams could easier have 90%+ EQP squads eailsy.

For a rough average ATM we have around an average of 65% EQP in squads sizes of around 41 that is 26 EQP in a squad spread around 12 clubs 312 English Players in our Top Flight competition.


I agree that the super 12 needs to come back or make it 2 simple conferences Australasia as 1 and SA with Japan and Argentina if they have to keep the expansions.

SA would be better off without the Kings and IMO the Cheetahs and have more money pumped into the other clubs, similarly Aus shouldn't have 5 teams and should chop 1 or 2 clubs. NZ are fine.

They also need to push TV deals AP has sold TV rights now to Germany, USA, Canada, Latin America, Caribbean, etc etc. I don't know what Super rugby has done TV wise though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Oh right, and that doesn't apply to SA players coming to Europe? Sorry you're just sore about it but happy to take the benefit when it happens to you. Incidentally you really need to separates what clubs do and how players are eventually picked to play for countries.

what benefit, please, one player from Zim who came to SA on his own and now we benefit in the same manner.

BS man, get n grip on reality.

Cannot believe 1 player is of equal benefit to over 90 South Africans in the European Cup competition alone.

What brilliant reasoning.

You're happy with the process when it benefits you and sulk when it doesn't

Yep, your bubble is pretty much impregnable

Oh and I didn't say the benefit was equal just the an advantange was gained for the same reason. Not my fault SA isn't seen as a desirable place to play rugby.

and you don't seem to understand a simple point. You want one rule for SA and another for others.

Welly wrote: For a rough average ATM we have around an average of 65% EQP in squads sizes of around 41 that is 26 EQP in a squad spread around 12 clubs 312 English Players in our Top Flight competition.

Wow, 65% EQP. 312 players. That's amazing. For a country with so many registered players, good work.

ebop, help me out could you explain who exactly is countered under 'registered players' please and confirm if those players all qualify for England? Thanks.

Unless I've read you wrong and you ain't doing that hundreds of thousnads misunderstanding that is!

Can't help you 7.5, English rugby administration is not my strength.

So you made the statement without knowing what you were talking about, makes sense now.

No 7&1/2 wrote:and you don't seem to understand a simple point. You want one rule for SA and another for others.

Again.

I "want" nothing, I merely stated the current situation. And suggested hoe SANZAAR proceed in ringfencing their best players.

No 7.5, I quoted Welly's 65% on average value (312 players) and used the words 'so many registered players'. I imagine registered rugby players play rugby of some form or another. Whatever that number is. Does that make sense to you?

Current situation being SA are happy with the rule.

Yeah it makes sense ebop, you've said you don't know what the reg pop is or how its counted so you don't really have a point.

And how many are needed for a national squad and a second team?
50/60 at most?

I mean NZ had more forign born players in their rugby World Cup squad than England did.

And the same amount that Quailifed through residency actually NZ had more players quailfy through Residency than England.

Yes I do have a point. 0% of English coaches are good enough to coach the English national team to an acceptable standard. Actually, that's not the point. Your domestic league 'relies on imports'. That's hardly the behaviour of a superpower.

ebop wrote:Yes I do have a point. 0% of English coaches are good enough to coach the English national team to an acceptable standard. Actually, that's not the point. Your domestic league 'relies on imports'. That's hardly the behaviour of a superpower.

Lol are you that thick?

1 coach is from Aus that is it. lol

And your finically input is hardly one of a superpower, if SA left SANZAR NZ would be in a huge mess.

And the funny thing is it is your national sport.

Lol, purchasing an Australian to coach your national team. The shame. 0% English were considered. If an Australian didn't step up to rescue English rugby you'd all be slitting your wrists.

Looking at it from a different perspective, if the English and French Unions could restrict the number of non French/English nationals playing for the clubs within their jurisdiction (which they can't as there are employment laws that prevent this) what would happen to all of those out of work rugby players.

I know the SH get all arsey about some of their best players going over to the dark side, however there are a lot of players who would not make the various national sides who are making a decent  living out of NH rugby - Are we going to make all these people redundant just so a few internet jockeys don't feel as aggrieved?

Might as well kick out all of the other foreign nationals in the UK, I mean to say what's so sacrosanct with being a rugby player - if an accountant from NZ or SA can come to London and make use of the better conditions and career paths - why not a rugby player.

You really want to have a word with yourselves, it's a global economy, people move to where the money is.

Lol you can try better than that now.

New Zealand couldn't even sellout its Eden park game v Aus in 2014.

Ah ok. I'm sure there's loads of people bothered and of course your point was an Aussie coach when talking about registered players!

talking about registered players!

It's quite easy to keep your best players in country, just pay them more than anyone else. simples. Worried about strength in depth? well have a dozen or so teams playing at a reasonable standard.

Of course you have to fund all of these players especially if it's a top-down type of hierarchy.

Can't afford to fund them? well there are consequences to that.

What's your obsession with registered players 7.5? Is it a bug bear of yours? I read that there are 2 million registered players in England. So what? Welly, what the heck are you on about? Lol

Ebop, 7.5 searches for a point in your comment he can be finicky about and thus he can derail your comment. Thus avoiding the real point of what you are trying to say.

It is called living in a bubble.

Was thinking that biltong

Burying head in sand syndrome

emack2 wrote:IRB[WRB]NH has more votes than SH fact,England has more votes than
anyone else[unless it`s changed recently].
Sharing costs for ALL tests makes sense,a season where clubs are in the
act of demanding.
There players return to there clubs whilist the RWC doesn`t,Club comps
interfereing with tours,Lions,or RWC doesn't.
Surely it is possible to arrange seasons to avoid this which is the proposal
as I see it.

Emack.

The last time England had more WR votes than anyone else was back in 1948 when they had four seats compared to two for Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Aus, SA and NZ joined in that year and England were reduced to two seats. SANZAR unions had one seat each and then moved to Two in 1958. France joined in 1978.

As of this year, there is now a 40 member council:

The eight Foundation unions have two votes each.
So also do Argentina, Italy and Canada.
Georgia, Japan, Romania and the US have one vote each.
Europe, N America, S America, Asia, Oceania and Africa have two votes each
Chair and vice chair have one vote each - casting.

Because that was your original point ebop, when questioned you said you didn't know what that comprised of, hence your point is rubbish.

Sorry Bilt, I know you get upset when challenged.

What's your obsession with registered players

You brought this particular topic to the discussion.

I think the question that was asked was WTF has registered players got to do with anything?

I'm not sure that many players in the weekly bloodfests that is rugby the lower divisions in deepest England will be highly paid foreigners, unless of course they are some colonial playing for fun who has moved to a bigger economy that was his land of birth.

Actually it would be interesting to see how many NEQ are registered and play in amateur (ie they pay to play) English clubs, I bet the majority of them are in the SE of England, which funnily enough is where most of the jobs are.

Rugby went professional in 1995 but, over twenty years later, we often still act as if it's an amateur sport with money regarded as some kind of medal for the top performers.

Any discussion about the structure of world rugby has to start from looking at where the sport currently generates revenue, and how it envisages growing it in the future. If we ignore that priority, then the history of professional sport is full of examples of what happens when major stakeholders feel unappreciated, or short-changed.

Rugby League exists because of Rugby Union's inflexibility. Packer's cricket split didn't last but it changed the face of that sport. In the US, player strikes and lockouts have hit baseball, hockey, basketball and American football. The English football Premier League was a breakaway from the Football League.

The job of those running this wild beast of rugby, is to ensure that everyone is given sufficient incentives to stay together.

The international game provides one area of validation. Carl Hayman didn't want to give up his Toulon contract to go back to NZ and play in a World Cup, as NZ required him to return home to play domestic rugby. However, given a different proposal, Giteau and Mitchell have both apparently forsaken a chunk of club income to play for the Wallabies.

Playing for your country still has a draw, so that's something the sport can use, provided we don't make the financial sacrifice too high. Rugby players are human. If the sport and camaraderie alone were enough, then we would never have lost players to League in the amateur days, and teams like the NZ Cavaliers and South American Jaguars wouldn't have toured South Africa.

So, the unions have a trump card but they can't overuse it. Play too many Tests, especially against the same teams, and the audience gets bored. If too many countries pin the future of the sport on Test success, then we are doomed to fail, since they can't all win all the time.

Internationals alone will not drive the rugby economy, because it's still too much of a closed shop, and there's no room to add more fixtures.  Keeping this model seems like a sure-fire recipe for a future breakaway.

So what's happening in domestic rugby? At the moment, the Pro 12, Super Rugby and even the Premiership have spoken about expanding into the US market, because they all feel at odds with each other. That's the level where World Rugby needs to become more engaged, not least to stop some viable domestic arrangements becoming overstretched.