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/

The revenue sharing proposal is based on revenue after costs are met. And that it be shared on all tours, not just ones in November.

Thus, for example, if it were to happen this year, then South Africa would share revenue from its three tests against Ireland, and Ireland would share revenue from its test against them in November. (Since they don't have a test, this would be quite handy for Ireland. )

Wales would share revenue with NZ from its three June tests, and share revenue from its match against NZ in November.

Very sensible proposal if you ask me.

And what encouragement is their for teams to play Tier 2 countries or teams like Italy and Argentina.

Will NZ want to give half of its 30K attendance for an Argentina game say to get half of a 17K attendance in Argentina?

What about Samoa? Who would want to play in Samoa then?

And what encouragement is their for teams to play Tier 2 countries or teams like Italy and Argentina

So what we saying here?

The discussion is not about player welfare but Union welfare?

I still haven't heard anything said that promotes player welfare, the term 'Global season' is bandied about, but will it cut down the number of games that the top players have to get through?

Has any Union actually made any statements about cutting the number of international fixtures?

THAT is the whole idea reorganising season to suit everyone including reducing number of tests.

Reduce international fixtures and there will be more club matches.

emack2 wrote:THAT is the whole idea reorganising season to suit everyone including reducing number of tests.

But that has only been suggestion on here I haven't seen a union state it wants less international games yet.

What seems to be happening is that NZ are, by accident or design conflating three separate issues:
1 - Player welfare: are players playing too many games and how do rugby as a whole reduce this. This is something that pretty much everyone would get on board with so some basic rules/agreements could be hammered out. The only disagreement will be whether we get there by reducing the number of games overall - country/club or both, or the number of games each individual player takes part in.
2 - Creating a global season: apart from maybe some tinkering around the edges this will be much more difficult to sort, the NH would be very unwilling to move to summer rugby or move the current international windows. Equally the SH would not want to move much further into their summer period.
3 - Sharing international game revenue: this is non-starter and is probably being offered up as a chip against changing the calendar "you move the calendar and we will not ask for more money".

NZ are looking to have number of tests reduced because NZ probably play the most each year.

So less tests all round
Share revenue more equitably to compensate for less tests
Restructure calendar to allow for less tests and for club level Comps to be run more efficiently. Perhaps maximum of 12 per year.

Wales, Ireland, Scotland Italy are likely to reduce their league season by moving to conference/pools and not play in test Windows.

A restructured European comp or additional World Club comp would soak up other time freed up.

Pot Hale wrote:NZ are looking to have number of tests reduced because NZ probably play the most each year.

So less tests all round
Share revenue more equitably to compensate for less tests
Restructure calendar to allow for less tests and for club level Comps to be run more efficiently.  Perhaps maximum of 12 per year.  

Wales, Ireland, Scotland Italy are likely to reduce their league season by moving to conference/pools and not play in test Windows.  

A restructured European comp or additional World Club comp would soak up other time freed up.

Up to world cup year, they seem to have played 12 games every year (which is similar to every other country). Last year reaching the world cup final, they played 15 times.

This year it looks like they will play 14 games. Why they have to play Australia 3 times is beyond me. Neither do they have to play Ireland in Chicago (which would bring them back to 12 games - just like everyone else).

I think it would be a mistake not to play during the 6Ns - what would the PRO12 teams do for 2 months? How would they keep match fit? It would be worse than doing a split shift. That is just not a runner unless the end of season is when the 6Ns starts.

12 internationals a year is reasonable. The problem is with the French clubs who not only having a larger league they insist on playoff for the top 6 clubs. How about just the Top 2 teams just in the playoffs and giving those club players who are playing far too many games of rugby. Watch Racing suffer next year as their season finished just as the rest of the Top 14 were starting their preseason.

The general consensus that I am getting from all this is that the SH, and in particular New Zealand want fewer games, but want the NH countries to foot the bill for the loss of income the SH would have from playing less games.

LordDowlais wrote:The general consensus that I am getting from all this is that the SH, and in particular New Zealand want fewer games, but want the NH countries to foot the bill for the loss of income the SH would have from playing less games.

They want to shift the June internationals and season end to July and start in October.

They're proposing revenue sharing for matches in SH and NH between tier 1 countries.

Some NH unions want to ditch June internationals altogether.

NH club bodies in Eng/Fra want clear division of the season between club matches and tests.

Creation of a world club championship.

Sin é wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:NZ are looking to have number of tests reduced because NZ probably play the most each year. ....up.

Up to world cup year, they seem to have played 12 games every year (which is similar to every other country). Last year reaching the world cup final, they played 15 times.

This year it looks like they will play 14 games. Why they have to play Australia 3 times is beyond me. Neither do they have to play Ireland in Chicago (which would bring them back to 12 games - just like everyone else).

It's higher than that, Sin. From 1 Jan 2010 - 31 Dec 2015, the main unions have played the following total number of test matches (avg playing minutes per year)

Australia 84 - 1120 mins p.a.
New Zealand 80 - 1067
Wales 77 - 1027
Argentina 73 - 973
South Africa 71 - 947
England 70 - 933
France 69 - 920
Ireland 69 - 920
Scotland 69 - 920
Lions 3

Note: Wales total inflated by their 17 test season in 2011.

Wowser, we got growing pains.

Thing is the game is growing.

Change is the only constant.

There will be winners and losers.

You diggin it?

Pot Hale wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:NZ are looking to have number of tests reduced because NZ probably play the most each year. ....up.

Up to world cup year, they seem to have played 12 games every year (which is similar to every other country). Last year reaching the world cup final, they played 15 times.

This year it looks like they will play 14 games. Why they have to play Australia 3 times is beyond me. Neither do they have to play Ireland in Chicago (which would bring them back to 12 games - just like everyone else).

It's higher than that, Sin.   From 1 Jan 2010 - 31 Dec 2015, the main unions have played the following total number of test matches (avg playing minutes per year)

Australia 84 - 1120 mins p.a. - 14 games
New Zealand 80 - 1067 - 13.3 games
Wales 77 - 1027 - 12.8 games
Argentina 73 - 973 - 12.1
South Africa 71 - 947 - 11.83
England 70 - 933 - 11.6
France 69 - 920 - 11.5
Ireland 69 - 920 - 11.5
Scotland 69 - 920 - 11.5
Lions 3

Note: Wales total inflated by their 17 test season in 2011.

Not sure if I got you right - but thats the average number of games per year (and there are 2 world cup years in that where New Zealand would have played more games obviously).

I still don't see the point of New Zealand playing Australia three times in the one year. Maybe the ABs should try and flog a few exhibition games with wealthy developing countries and use fringe players!

Sin é wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:NZ are looking to have number of tests reduced because NZ probably play the most each year. ....up.

Up to world cup year, they seem to have played 12 games every year (which is similar to every other country). Last year reaching the world cup final, they played 15 times.

This year it looks like they will play 14 games. Why they have to play Australia 3 times is beyond me. Neither do they have to play Ireland in Chicago (which would bring them back to 12 games - just like everyone else).

It's higher than that, Sin.   From 1 Jan 2010 - 31 Dec 2015, the main unions have played the following total number of test matches (avg playing minutes per year)

Australia 84 - 1120 mins p.a.  - 14 games
New Zealand 80 - 1067     -  13.3 games
Wales 77 - 1027  -   12.8 games
Argentina 73 - 973  -  12.1
South Africa 71 - 947  -  11.83
England 70 - 933  -  11.6
France 69 - 920   -   11.5
Ireland 69 - 920   -   11.5
Scotland 69 - 920   -   11.5
Lions 3

Note: Wales total inflated by their 17 test season in 2011.

Not sure if I got you right - but thats the average number of games per year (and there are 2 world cup years in that where New Zealand would have played more games obviously).

I still don't see the point of New Zealand playing Australia three times in the one year. Maybe the ABs should try and flog a few exhibition games with wealthy developing countries and use fringe players!

NZ have played 14 games rather than 12 as you said. Australia have played 15.

They're the two teams that generally play more than others. In RWC there's no Nov tests and a shortened 4N.

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:The general consensus that I am getting from all this is that the SH, and in particular New Zealand want fewer games, but want the NH countries to foot the bill for the loss of income the SH would have from playing less games.

They want to shift the June internationals and season end to July and start in October.

They're proposing revenue sharing for matches in SH and NH between tier 1 countries.  

Some NH unions want to ditch June internationals altogether.

NH club bodies in Eng/Fra want clear division of the season between club matches and tests.

Creation of a world club championship.

This is what I'm getting.

So I don't get why people are Aus and NZ are wanting less test I mean the rugby championship is one more game than the six nations and they play a 3rd game against each other.

Welly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:The general consensus that I am getting from all this is that the SH, and in particular New Zealand want fewer games, but want the NH countries to foot the bill for the loss of income the SH would have from playing less games.

They want to shift the June internationals and season end to July and start in October.

They're proposing revenue sharing for matches in SH and NH between tier 1 countries.  

Some NH unions want to ditch June internationals altogether.

NH club bodies in Eng/Fra want clear division of the season between club matches and tests.

Creation of a world club championship.

This is what I'm getting.

So I don't get why people are Aus and NZ are wanting less test I mean the rugby championship is one more game than the six nations and they play a 3rd game against each other.

Because they don't want to have to play 14-15 tests a year. If revenues were more evenly distributed then they wouldn't have to. It's very straightforward to understand. Equally, why do Wales and England regularly organise 4th tests in November internationals? And why have Ireland done so this year?

Pot Hale wrote:

Welly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:The general consensus that I am getting from all this is that the SH, and in particular New Zealand want fewer games, but want the NH countries to foot the bill for the loss of income the SH would have from playing less games.

They want to shift the June internationals and season end to July and start in October.

They're proposing revenue sharing for matches in SH and NH between tier 1 countries.  

Some NH unions want to ditch June internationals altogether.

NH club bodies in Eng/Fra want clear division of the season between club matches and tests.

Creation of a world club championship.

This is what I'm getting.

So I don't get why people are Aus and NZ are wanting less test I mean the rugby championship is one more game than the six nations and they play a 3rd game against each other.

Because they don't want to have to play 14-15 tests a year.  If revenues were more evenly distributed then they wouldn't have to.   It's very straightforward to understand.   Equally, why do Wales and England regularly organise 4th tests in November internationals?   And why have Ireland done so this year?

Big stadiums that need to be filled and paid off.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because that was your original point ebop, when questioned you said you didn't know what that comprised of, hence your point is rubbish.

No. I know what it comprises. The only thing you need to know for my point is that England are in the top 2 countries (with SA) when it comes to registered players. There is a massive foundation to build on.  But 35% of your top domestic league are imports. Why? You want it to be the best it can be right? 35% represents a pretty big skills gap imo. Either your pathways are broken or the average rugby player is poorer, relatively speaking, and can't reach the level required. And the cherry on the top is England doesn't have the guts to appoint one of its own as head coach of their national side. I think that's embarrassing for a so-called rugby superpower. Contrast that with SA. They don't need propping up with talent although their current policy is regrettable. What they need is more money (as do Australia and NZ) in order to retain their professionals to reduce poaching by the NH to fill skills gaps. So you can bet that these teams will also want a bigger slice of the pie. You guys may get your wish and get to watch 6N games in full stadia on rotation. Imagine it?

The rules on players are the same for all,SO before we get to NZ are allways
poaching players bit.
NZ representatives that were NOT born in NZ or to NZ parents since 1905
is about 40 players.
Taken to its logical conclusion BOTH NH and SH would have club,cup,
and tests.With NEITHER sides meeting except on a Lions tour or at
RWC.
Seasons properly organized would mean Clubs could be full strength
at all times.TVrights,sponsorships,gates would logically increase.
IT could mean a full blown tour every 10 years by a SH side to
Europe.
Nobody in Europe apparently is interested in SH basketball games
so will no longer be covered here.
IF matches are organized as now by IRB whatever the NH want they
will get.Because they have more votes on the IRB.

ebop wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because that was your original point ebop, when questioned you said you didn't know what that comprised of, hence your point is rubbish.

No. I know what it comprises. The only thing you need to know for my point is that England are in the top 2 countries (with SA) when it comes to registered players. There is a massive foundation to build on.  But 35% of your top domestic league are imports. Why? You want it to be the best it can be right? 35% represents a pretty big skills gap imo. Either your pathways are broken or the average rugby player is poorer, relatively speaking, and can't reach the level required. And the cherry on the top is England doesn't have the guts to appoint one of its own as head coach of their national side. I think that's embarrassing for a so-called rugby superpower. Contrast that with SA. They don't need propping up with talent although their current policy is regrettable. What they need is more money (as do Australia and NZ) in order to retain their professionals to reduce poaching by the NH to fill skills gaps. So you can bet that these teams will also want a bigger slice of the pie. You guys may get your wish and get to watch 6N games in full stadia on rotation. Imagine it?

You've already said you have no idea what registered players means hence you have no point. By all means do some research and stop embarrassinhg yourself.

Lol, filling out a RFU registration form

You're a classic 7.5

TVrights,sponsorships,gates would logically increase

Not so.

Why would any company based in the UK pay top money to put adverts on for a game taking place at daft-o'clock in a place nowhere near their targeted audience?

Rugby's still very much a second tier sport in the UK, if you doubt that just look at the difference in the deals between Rugby (both types) and Football.

I know that it might be difficult for some NZers to understand but in the UK most people don't give a toss about rugby and even the AB 'brand' is no great draw, certainly won't pull in the unwashed masses.

The NH cake (as it currently stands without more investment) is definitely a finite resource, it's growing slowly but if anybody wants a bigger slice than they get at the minute then it means somebody else has to do without.

If the SH shut up shop and isolate themselves because they are not getting what they perceive they are worth it might be a good incentive for the 6N countries to invest a bit more game time with the smaller European sides, which of course will increase the interest and possibly make Europe a more lucrative market. Which of course makes the NH rugby all the richer.

The point was that since no one in the NH is interested in the inferior
SH game at any level.
Curry Cup.Mitre 10,Super.or RC tests would be covered either by any tv
or internet provider.
Incidentally IF you think Mitre 10 sides are weak and not of NH quality
I`d back Canterbury at full strength versus any club side in the world.

ebop wrote:Lol, filling out a RFU registration form

You're a classic 7.5

And you're trying to wum without knowledge which makes it too easy.Put some effort in.

emack2 wrote:The point was that since no one in the NH is interested in the inferior
SH game at any level.
Curry Cup.Mitre 10,Super.or RC tests would be covered either by any tv
or internet provider.
Incidentally IF you think Mitre 10 sides are weak and not of NH quality
I`d back Canterbury at full strength versus any club side in the world.

There are some plastic glory hunters who are very interested!

No 7.5, you obfuscate so you can bury your head in the sand. I know what a registered player is. I just told you. And while I'm at it. Enjoy your Australian coach. Yes, that's a WUM. Own it.

emack, didn't Waikato beat Wales recently?

32-3 to New Zealand at half time against Australia.

No - New Zealand are not getting too big for their boots.

ebop wrote:No 7.5, you obfuscate so you can bury your head in the sand. I know what a registered player is. I just told you. And while I'm at it. Enjoy your Australian coach. Yes, that's a WUM. Own it.

So you now know you had no poinr; well done you! Yeah there are a lotof gutted England fans at the moment, your wums suck!

ebop wrote:emack, didn't Waikato beat Wales recently?

Chiefs.

Apologies, yes the Chiefs and it was the Welsh reserves

Ok 7.5, you win, you have bored me into submission

A bit like your rugby team

ebop wrote:Apologies, yes the Chiefs and it was the Welsh reserves

Ok 7.5, you win, you have bored me into submission

Yep. Rather worrying that team Wales reserves are vastly inferior to the Chiefs reserves. Credit to NZ rugby though, it's phenomenal.

mikey_dragon wrote:

ebop wrote:Apologies, yes the Chiefs and it was the Welsh reserves

Ok 7.5, you win, you have bored me into submission

Yep. Rather worrying that team Wales reserves are vastly inferior to the Chiefs reserves. Credit to NZ rugby though, it's phenomenal.

But then again Tigers 3rd/4th team beat SA reserves.

Was nice to watch but means pretty much jack all.

Welly wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

ebop wrote:Apologies, yes the Chiefs and it was the Welsh reserves

Ok 7.5, you win, you have bored me into submission

Yep. Rather worrying that team Wales reserves are vastly inferior to the Chiefs reserves. Credit to NZ rugby though, it's phenomenal.

But then again Tigers 3rd/4th team beat SA reserves.

Was nice to watch but means pretty much jack all.

Munster begs to differ Welly

ebop wrote:

Welly wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

ebop wrote:Apologies, yes the Chiefs and it was the Welsh reserves

Ok 7.5, you win, you have bored me into submission

Yep. Rather worrying that team Wales reserves are vastly inferior to the Chiefs reserves. Credit to NZ rugby though, it's phenomenal.

But then again Tigers 3rd/4th team beat SA reserves.

Was nice to watch but means pretty much jack all.

Munster begs to differ Welly

Agreed.

Yeh but that's munster.

emack2 wrote:
IF matches are organized as now by IRB whatever the NH want they will get. Because they have more votes on the IRB.

No they don't, emack.   And you assume that NH unions all want the same thing.  They don't.  France is supportive of some NZ proposals.

Welly wrote: Yeh but that's munster.

What's Munster?

Pot Hale wrote:

Welly wrote: Yeh but that's munster.

What's Munster?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

ebop wrote:No 7.5, you obfuscate so you can bury your head in the sand. I know what a registered player is. I just told you. And while I'm at it. Enjoy your Australian coach. Yes, that's a WUM. Own it.

So you now know you had no poinr; well done you! Yeah there are a lotof gutted England fans at the moment, your wums suck!

Ok, my wums suck, but not as much as your coaches and 35% of your elite players

ebop wrote:Ok, my wums suck, but not as much as your coaches and 35% of your elite players

Count me among those who don't think appointing a coach is about "guts".

I'm quite prepared to concede the skill levels of NZ players are superior to most other rugby nations but I'm not bent out of shape about the number of overseas players in our domestic league. The Premiership is competitive, so teams need elite players to be available when others are away on international duty. Currently, the balance seems about right, because young English players are getting opportunities.

I'm in awe of the skills NZ players demonstrate but that's not the be-all and end-all. Sevens is all about skills but NZ have come up short over the last two years on that front. However, in Test match rugby, I think NZ are still two moves ahead in the way they think about the game.

That makes them a formidable opponent but we've seen All Black teams develop feet of clay before when they don't get the run of play, so that's how the rest of us will hope to triumph.

None of this has anything to do with how we structure the sport. Or, indeed, any sport.

You just have to see the age of our squad to see what shape English rugby is in
25 and under and up from AP academies we have
Hooker: George, Cowan-Dickie
Props: Vunipola, Genge, Hill, Sinckler
Locks: Ewels, Itoje, Launchbury,
Flanks: Clifford, Evans,
N8: Beaumont, Vunipola,
Scrum Half: Robson
Fly Half: Faz, ford
Centre: Daly, JJ, Manu, Slade, Marchant
Back 3: Nowell, Watson, Yarde, Haley

That is a hell of a group potential wise.

Welly wrote: You just have to see the age of our squad to see what shape English rugby is in
25 and under and up from AP academies we have
Hooker: George, Cowan-Dickie
Props: Vunipola, Genge, Hill, Sinckler
Locks: Ewels, Itoje, Launchbury,
Flanks: Clifford, Evans,
N8: Beaumont, Vunipola,
Scrum Half: Robson
Fly Half: Faz, ford
Centre: Daly, JJ, Manu, Slade, Marchant
Back 3: Nowell, Watson, Yarde, Haley

That is a hell of a group potential wise.

Yeh but that's england....

Pot Hale wrote:

Welly wrote: You just have to see the age of our squad to see what shape English rugby is in
25 and under and up from AP academies we have
Hooker: George, Cowan-Dickie
Props: Vunipola, Genge, Hill, Sinckler
Locks: Ewels, Itoje, Launchbury,
Flanks: Clifford, Evans,
N8: Beaumont, Vunipola,
Scrum Half: Robson
Fly Half: Faz, ford
Centre: Daly, JJ, Manu, Slade, Marchant
Back 3: Nowell, Watson, Yarde, Haley

That is a hell of a group potential wise.

Yeh but that's amazing

I agree

Can they not just get bigger boots?

kingelderfield wrote:Can they not just get bigger boots?

They can wear any (adidas sponsored) boots they want as long as they don't expect the NH to pay for them !

Welly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Welly wrote: You just have to see the age of our squad to see what shape English rugby is in
25 and under and up from AP academies we have
Hooker: George, Cowan-Dickie
Props: Vunipola, Genge, Hill, Sinckler
Locks: Ewels, Itoje, Launchbury,
Flanks: Clifford, Evans,
N8: Beaumont, Vunipola,
Scrum Half: Robson
Fly Half: Faz, ford
Centre: Daly, JJ, Manu, Slade, Marchant
Back 3: Nowell, Watson, Yarde, Haley

That is a hell of a group potential wise.

Yeh but that's amazing england.

I agree

Rule 101 of forums, Welly.  Don't alter what people said when directly quoting them.  It's misleading and bad manners.

Pot Hale wrote:The revenue sharing proposal is based on revenue after costs are met.  And that it be shared on all tours, not just ones in November.  

Thus, for example, if it were to happen this year, then South Africa would share revenue from its three tests against Ireland, and Ireland would share revenue from its test against them in November. (Since they don't have a test, this would be quite handy for Ireland. )

Wales would share revenue with NZ from its three June tests, and share revenue from its match against NZ in November.

Very sensible proposal if you ask me.  

Rubbish it's a terrible idea for most countries. Wales spent £250m on building a 72k seater stadium, on the other hand New Zealand built a load of 25k-30k stadiums. Also look at how weak the NZ $ is and how much they charge for tickets. Touring New Zealand is a charity run on those propsals. New Zealand would probably never host a serious touring country again.

Shifty wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:The revenue sharing proposal is based on revenue after costs are met.  And that it be shared on all tours, not just ones in November.  

Thus, for example, if it were to happen this year, then South Africa would share revenue from its three tests against Ireland, and Ireland would share revenue from its test against them in November. (Since they don't have a test, this would be quite handy for Ireland. )

Wales would share revenue with NZ from its three June tests, and share revenue from its match against NZ in November.

Very sensible proposal if you ask me.  

Rubbish it's a terrible idea for most countries.  Wales spent £250m on building a 72k seater stadium, on the other hand New Zealand built a load of 25k-30k stadiums.  Also look at how weak the NZ $ is and how much they charge for tickets.  Touring New Zealand is a charity run on those propsals.  New Zealand would probably never host a serious touring country again.  

Dont worry some of our recent visitors havent been all that serious anyway.