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/

Allty chuckles......

aucklandlaurie wrote:

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.

Touché Laurie.

That could continue next weekend too.

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.  

Shifty, I don't know where you got those figures from, but the total cost for the Millenium was £121M, of which £46M was given by the Commission, so it cost the WRU £75M.

It seems the Pro 12 wants a season where club/cup matches are finished
before test matches begin too[see Planet Rugby]

I remember when internationals were called Tests, which was for a reason.
Now 25 year olds can rack up 50 caps whilst playing virtually the same number of clubs games over the same period.
There should be 8 or 9 Tests a season at the maximum and preferably less. Unions wanting to control the elite game and therefore having to pay for it, is a business model that is not sustainable and needs to be scrapped.

Access for all players and fans alike at grass roots level upwards is the only fundamentally sound and fair model. I understand some fans want to wave a national flag and is somehow a badge of cultural strength, particularly for small countries.
However, I would rather follow my local team and enjoy the local rivalries - that is the future.

The elite level and World Cups will take care of itself - less is more.

Recwatcher16 wrote:I remember when internationals were called Tests, which was for a reason.
Now 25 year olds can rack up 50 caps whilst playing virtually the same number of clubs games over the same period.
There should be 8 or 9 Tests a season at the maximum and preferably less. Unions wanting to control the elite game and therefore having to pay for it, is a business model that is not sustainable and needs to be scrapped.

Access for all players and fans alike at grass roots level upwards is the only fundamentally sound and fair model. I understand some fans want to wave a national flag and is somehow a badge of cultural strength, particularly for small countries.
However, I would rather follow my local team and enjoy the local rivalries - that is the future.

The elite level and World Cups will take care of itself - less is more.

I agree. We need far fewer internationals. That is the obvious way to stop top players playing too many games.

Add USA, Canada, Romania and Georgia teams to 6N and split in to two five team leagues.
Year 1: 2 warm up tests & RWC
Year 2: Rest year
Year 3: SH Teams 3 game tour of NH
Year 4: SH Teams 3 game tour of NH
So NH teams will have between four and seven games in a non-world cup year which is more than enough.

Of course it means scrapping the Lions.

I'm not for USA and Canada joining the 6N's

emack2 wrote:It seems the Pro 12 wants a season where club/cup matches are finished
before test matches begin too[see Planet Rugby]

Yes emack, if you look at the Rugby Club section on this site, you'll find a number of topics about it.

Scotland and Wales are apparently open to the idea of moving the Six Nations, England and Ireland are opposed - publicly anyway.

Philip Browne, head of IRFU, also represents the PRO12 in the global season discussions. Martin Anayi, CEO of the PRO12 said in an interview at the launch of the new PRO12 season that Browne's attitude was softening on the proposal to shift it. He added that public positions being taken were part of the 'positioning' that generally occurs around these kind of negotiations.

Bill Beaumont has indicated recently that the Six Nations could shift back 3 weeks. Anayi and the PRO12 CEOs may want the Six Nations to shift to April/May but finish in time before large TV sport events such as Champions League final, Wimbledon or Olympics. They've discussed this potential shift with broadcasters who think that's possible. That kind of shift would allow the PRO12 club season and possibly European cup to finish before Six Nations. The four unions of Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy might also support this.

Your assumption that NH rugby is unified and votes the same way within WR may not be accurate.

True England can afford it with there resources,Ireland sides speak from
strength Heineken successes are upthere with the French sides.
The days when England had 4 votes on the IRB are gone but with respect
Club games clashing with the corporate deals is no excuse.
The Corporate package odd test match at Twickenham,Ascot,FACup final,
The Open,etc throw in a night at the \Opera/Royal Ballet.
That's for visiting SUITS not FANS pushed to the limit it could be ENGLAND
and IRELAND looking for who to play outside 6Ns.

emack2 wrote:True England can afford it with there resources,Ireland sides speak from
strength Heineken successes are upthere with the French sides.
The days when England had 4 votes on the IRB are gone but with respect
Club games clashing with the corporate deals is no excuse.
The Corporate package odd test match at Twickenham,Ascot,FACup final,
The Open,etc throw in a night at the \Opera/Royal Ballet.
That's for visiting SUITS not FANS pushed to the limit it could be ENGLAND
and IRELAND looking for who to play outside 6Ns.

I don't really follow that. England can afford what with their resources? Irish provinces haven't had success since 2012.

Don't know what your references to corporate packages are about - sorry.

I think he's trying to insinuate that the majority of the 82k who turn up at Twickenham are not true fans.

TrailApe wrote:I think he's trying to insinuate that the majority of the 82k who turn up at Twickenham are not true fans.

But they are still paying their £££££££'s.

But they are still paying their £££££££'s.

Exactly - and it's a bit of a poke in the eye to the SH unions saying that they can't market a superior (supposedly) product - or is emack saying there is no culture down south to lure the corporates in?

TrailApe wrote:

But they are still paying their £££££££'s.

Exactly - and it's a bit of a poke in the eye to the SH unions saying that they can't market a superior (supposedly) product - or is emack saying there is no culture down south to lure the corporates in?

Or is he referring to extra test matches in November?

"club games clashing with corporate deals is no excuse"

No excuse not to change the calendar?

Premiership have come out belatedly and said they want season changed too. They don't agree with PRO12 proposal to shift to beginning of April, but they have other ideas/concepts that they'll happily discuss in a room.

In other words, they want into the room.

To clarify a large sum of money[many millions of pounds]has been invested
in a "Corporate Hospitality Suite" at Twickenham.
Corporate hospitality is a posh word for Bribery in the Big Business World.
A Package that involves the best food/drink plus whatever is required a
box at the Royal Opera House,Covent Garden,a Box at Royal Ascot whatever.
It has little to do with the Fans,its just business and could include hot and
cold Girls too if it mean`t a contract.

wayne wrote:Shifty, I don't know where you got those figures from, but the total cost for the Millenium was £121M, of which £46M was given by the Commission, so it cost the WRU £75M.

Your right I always thought it was £250m, but Wiki confirms what your saying.

emack2 wrote:To clarify a large sum of money[many millions of pounds]has been invested
in a "Corporate Hospitality Suite" at Twickenham.
Corporate hospitality is a posh word for Bribery in the Big Business World.
A Package that involves the best food/drink plus whatever is required a
box at the Royal Opera House,Covent Garden,a Box at Royal Ascot whatever.
It has little to do with the Fans,its just business and could include hot and
cold Girls too if it mean`t a contract.

Hot and cold girls!?

emack2 wrote:To clarify a large sum of money[many millions of pounds]has been invested
in a "Corporate Hospitality Suite" at Twickenham.
Corporate hospitality is a posh word for Bribery in the Big Business World.
A Package that involves the best food/drink plus whatever is required a
box at the Royal Opera House,Covent Garden,a Box at Royal Ascot whatever.
It has little to do with the Fans,its just business and could include hot and
cold Girls too if it mean`t a contract.

So you are complaining that unlike NZ the RFU knows how the business world works and how to make money?

And that is a bad thing becuase?

And that is a bad thing becuase?

Mebbes NZ can't replicate it - instead of the opera, hot and cold girls and drugs they get to sit on a bale of straw watching One Man and His Dog with the only white lines being on the pitch?

Hard Korp those Kiwi supporters!

emack2 wrote:To clarify a large sum of money[many millions of pounds]has been invested
in a "Corporate Hospitality Suite" at Twickenham.
Corporate hospitality is a posh word for Bribery in the Big Business World.
A Package that involves the best food/drink plus whatever is required a
box at the Royal Opera House,Covent Garden,a Box at Royal Ascot whatever.
It has little to do with the Fans,its just business and could include hot and
cold Girls too if it mean`t a contract.

Speaking as both a fan and an occasional user of the Corporate Hospitality suites at Twickenham, I wonder if perhaps you should look to the plank in your own eye before you go after the mote in ours.

Here's a link to the Eden Park Hospitality Package for last weekend: http://edenpark.co.nz/uploads/uploads/uploads/150716%20update%20-%20Hospitality%20Brochures%20-%20All%20Blacks_%C6%92.pdf

$995 per head.

Here are the Hospitality Packages for Twickenham: http://www.keithprowse.co.uk/rugby_england-v-south-africa-rugby-hospitality.aspx

£629-99 per head for the equivalent (though the actual price that corporates can negotiate are lower).

At an exchange rate of 0.56, NZ is marginally cheaper ($995 ~ £557) - but considering purchasing power parity (£0.56 in London buys a fair bit less than $1 in NZ), the NZ prices are actually a bigger chunk of someone's wages.

In fact, given the relative size of tv deals (probably the biggest part of the game's revenue), I would give you good odds that the NZRU earns a bigger proportion of its money from corporate hospitality than the RFU.

Get real. The All Blacks are not some sacred temple of fandom. The RFU is not a stinking pit of grubby commercialism (erm, who were among the last holdouts on professionalism, in a misguided attempt to "protect the players"?) They are both commercial organisations as well as sporting organisations, just like every other union.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

emack2 wrote:To clarify a large sum of money[many millions of pounds]has been invested
in a "Corporate Hospitality Suite" at Twickenham.
Corporate hospitality is a posh word for Bribery in the Big Business World.
A Package that involves the best food/drink plus whatever is required a
box at the Royal Opera House,Covent Garden,a Box at Royal Ascot whatever.
It has little to do with the Fans,its just business and could include hot and
cold Girls too if it mean`t a contract.

Hot and cold girls!?

Last time I used a luxury (corporate) box at HQ the girls were actually women. And the women were usually running cold.

Poorfour wrote:

emack2 wrote:To clarify a large sum of money[many millions of pounds]has been invested
in a "Corporate Hospitality Suite" at Twickenham.
Corporate hospitality is a posh word for Bribery in the Big Business World.
A Package that involves the best food/drink plus whatever is required a
box at the Royal Opera House,Covent Garden,a Box at Royal Ascot whatever.
It has little to do with the Fans,its just business and could include hot and
cold Girls too if it mean`t a contract.

Speaking as both a fan and an occasional user of the Corporate Hospitality suites at Twickenham, I wonder if perhaps you should look to the plank in your own eye before you go after the mote in ours.

Here's a link to the Eden Park Hospitality Package for last weekend: http://edenpark.co.nz/uploads/uploads/uploads/150716%20update%20-%20Hospitality%20Brochures%20-%20All%20Blacks_%C6%92.pdf

$995 per head.

Here are the Hospitality Packages for Twickenham: http://www.keithprowse.co.uk/rugby_england-v-south-africa-rugby-hospitality.aspx

£629-99 per head for the equivalent (though the actual price that corporates can negotiate are lower).

At an exchange rate of 0.56, NZ is marginally cheaper ($995 ~ £557) - but considering purchasing power parity (£0.56 in London buys a fair bit less than $1 in NZ), the NZ prices are actually a bigger chunk of someone's wages.

In fact, given the relative size of tv deals (probably the biggest part of the game's revenue), I would give you good odds that the NZRU earns a bigger proportion of its money from corporate hospitality than the RFU.

Get real. The All Blacks are not some sacred temple of fandom. The RFU is not a stinking pit of grubby commercialism (erm, who were among the last holdouts on professionalism, in a misguided attempt to "protect the players"?) They are both commercial organisations as well as sporting organisations, just like every other union.

I went to Eden Park last weekend, the quoted price above of $995 must have only been for English people, locals got in far cheaper.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

I went to Eden Park last weekend, the quoted  price above of $995 must have only been for English people, locals got in far cheaper.

Who was playing at Eden Park last weekend?

Welly wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

I went to Eden Park last weekend, the quoted  price above of $995 must have only been for English people, locals got in far cheaper.

Who was playing at Eden Park last weekend?

2:30 pm last Saturday Auckland Secondary schools Grand Final, Mount Albert Grammar School versus Sacred Heart (my old 1st xv), MAGS won 15 - 13.

Well no shyt you didn't pay that price.

Didnt even have to jump the fence.

Sorry but based on the level of the debate over the last page or 2 there are a few of you that need to get a life or find a woman (hot or cold).

To be honest who cares if New Zealand go it alone - England and France have plenty of money and will happily survive without them. We might even win the world cup. All that would happen is that New Zealand would loose players to rugby league. The 6 Nations is by and large a pretty poor quality rugby tournament, but it makes a shed load of money for the countries. And yes, the corporate hospitality is a big part of that.

I am getting very confused,SH want a season where club/Super Rugby
is finished then play Test Rugby.
Pro 12 Clubs want it at least Wales/Scotland do,France/Italy no idea.
Apparently the Premier league clubs want it to so wheres the problem?
How long do you think all that money will be in England outside the
circle of the 6Ns endless penalty shoot outs.?
A lot of this is about tv rights for various countries,frankly I don`t care
who has them.
At my advanced age may well be dead by 2019. BUT I want to be able
to view ALL matches Club/test ,whatever by all of these without having
to join multiple pay tv contracts.
THAT will be the reality if someone refuses to settle this mess,whats
wrong.
WITH ANY COUNTRY negoiateing there own test program when the
fixture list is open.
JUNE/NOVEMBER tests finished,not test window everything settled
between countries whoever they are.

Their.

Apparently the Premier league clubs want it to so wheres the problem?

There's no real problem, it might actually happen, but if you remember this thread kicked off because the NZRFU declined to play an extra test, not because of the calendar, not because of player welfare but because the RFU declined to accede to their financial demands.

Since then a few AB fans have explained that this is not because the NZRFU is a bunch of greedy robbing blazers but because they really, really, really care about player welfare and by not playing the extra international (which they would if the price was right) the whole global season will magically become right.

Of course so far this seems to involve the NH moving one of the most lucrative money spinning competitions in world rugby and by handing over more money to the SANZAR nations (although the Boks seem to be in rude health on this score) for no discernable gains.

So no real problem eh?

Sadly this debate has been going on for years and basically within the club game the same issue always comes up. Most English and Welsh clubs Can't move the rugby season as nearly all club grounds are owned by councils and other sports teams use those grounds during the summer. Cricket being a major clashing problem. I know Kenfig Hill for example were refused permission to play a friendly in August one year because they are only allowed to use the ground from September onwards.

Shifty wrote:Sadly this debate has been going on for years and basically within the club game the same issue always comes up.  Most English and Welsh clubs Can't move the rugby season as nearly all club grounds are owned by councils and other sports teams use those grounds during the summer.  Cricket being a major clashing problem.  I know Kenfig Hill for example were refused permission to play a friendly in August one year because they are only allowed to use the ground from September onwards.  

That's a very fair point. Leinster's use of RDS which they're in the process of upgrading would be used by RDS during summer months. Rugby during summer months would also clash with national football, hurling and soccer comps so don't know how that would be seen by TV networks and relevant organisers.

Another twist in this story, Gerald Davies wants the 6N's moved to the end of the season as a grand finale.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/welsh-rugby-legend-gerald-davies-11814927

LordDowlais wrote:Another twist in this story, Gerald Davies wants the 6N's moved to the end of the season as a grand finale.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/welsh-rugby-legend-gerald-davies-11814927

He's just repeating/supporting what Anayi has already said - have the Six Nations in April/May.

He's just repeating/supporting what Anayi has already said - have the Six Nations in April/May

Then out of the blue you have one SH commentator (Matt Burke) saying it should be the SH that moves it's season, stating something on the lines of

a) the NH season (as it stands) generates oodles of filthy lucre - Rugby as a sport needs this revenue flow
b) moving SH rugby to their summer will remove the direct competition from RL and Aussie Rules

So it seems that there are splits developing in both camps. I think this is another indication that each Union has it's own agenda and will play the game as such - pretty understandable.

Anybody heard anything from the Boks?

Don't think there's been anything official from the Boks but there is a lot of speculation that they wouldn't need much persuading to align themselves with the NH at club level, at which point they might also do the same at international level.

I think in the long run with SA struggling to keep up with NZ they will see an allignment with the NH more viable.... both time wise and sponsorship wise. They can't compete with the European game and the no. of players they're losing is now seriously impacting the national game.
Its more sustainable playing with Europe too in terms of TV times and population size.... who watches rugby at 8am Sat morning... only the die hards thats for sure.

This is only the start with losses vs. Japan, Argentina, Ireland etc. Its going to continue also. In the past it worked like this.

Past -

A players stay. Get bok honours , sponsorship. Most stayed.
B players go. No more bok honours, move to Europe Japan for better earnings.
C players stay. get fringe bok squad selection. No one in Europe wants them.

Now the A players are gone SA is stuck with C grade players. If SA overseas faced the boks today they'd probably win without little prep by about 30 points.
Its not sustainable in the long run, something will happen.

TrailApe wrote:

He's just repeating/supporting what Anayi has already said - have the Six Nations in April/May

Then out of the blue you have one SH commentator (Matt Burke)  saying it should be the SH that moves it's season, stating something on the lines of

a) the NH season (as it stands) generates oodles of filthy lucre - Rugby as a sport needs this revenue flow
b) moving SH rugby to their summer will remove the direct competition from RL and Aussie Rules

So it seems that there are splits developing in both camps. I think this is another indication that each Union has it's own agenda and will play the game as such - pretty understandable.

Anybody heard anything from the Boks?

Unlike Matt Burke South Africa aren't impacted by RL or Aussie Rules.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

He's just repeating/supporting what Anayi has already said - have the Six Nations in April/May

Then out of the blue you have one SH commentator (Matt Burke)  saying it should be the SH that moves it's season, stating something on the lines of

a) the NH season (as it stands) generates oodles of filthy lucre - Rugby as a sport needs this revenue flow
b) moving SH rugby to their summer will remove the direct competition from RL and Aussie Rules

So it seems that there are splits developing in both camps. I think this is another indication that each Union has it's own agenda and will play the game as such - pretty understandable.

Anybody heard anything from the Boks?

Unlike Matt Burke South Africa aren't impacted by RL or Aussie Rules.

Can you imagine Tew & Roux going to the ARU post global season... so we agreed to a global season to combat NRL and AR and I see you have increased your revenues by $10 million AUD because of it.... our cheques are in the post right?

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Another twist in this story, Gerald Davies wants the 6N's moved to the end of the season as a grand finale.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/welsh-rugby-legend-gerald-davies-11814927

He's just repeating/supporting what Anayi has already said - have the Six Nations in April/May.

If we moved the 6N's to the end of the season, would it affect the summer SH tours, I don't think five competitive internationals followed by another half dozen games in the SH is going to be good for player welfare, basically like playing a full round of RWC games every year.

As a matter of interest does playing Tier 1 SH sides in the AI`s show
larger gates.[or TV rights etc]
Than say the average 6 Ns game if so they may have a point about
some shared revenue.

No they don't and no they shouldn't unless they agreed to share costs of building and upkeep surely?

One aspect of the shared revenue argument is that Lions tours have been left out of the debate so far.

Up to now, the the British & Irish unions made a small income/profit from a Lions tour with the majority of the income and profits going to the host nation.

Traditionally, Lions tours have been to SA, NZ and Aus, however, with the expansion of the Tri-Nations to four with Argentina, there is a strong argument that the Lions tour schedule should reflect this too.

If there is to be a proposal for sharing of revenue across all Tier One test matches, wherever they are played during appointed test windows, then presumably this will be applied across the board.

The Australian Rugby Union have started to talk about revenue sharing:

Sydney Morning Herald - October 10 2016

"Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are continuing to press for a juicier slice of world rugby's revenue pie as global season talks drag on.

Australian Rugby Union boss Bill Pulver said there was a "collective will" to resolve the vexed issue of the global season and, significantly, the financial equation tied up with it.

The southern hemisphere powerhouses, who send their Test teams north to pack out stadiums in London, Dublin, Cardiff and Edinburgh every November, are campaigning for an unprecedented revenue-share agreement for the new Test tour schedule after the 2019 World Cup.

RFU chief Ian Ritchie has made a number of pre-emptive strikes against the campaign, urging Australia and New Zealand to "go and build a bigger stadium" if they want to make more money from their games at home.

But Pulver signalled there would be no let up from the SANZAAR nations, who argue that their value to the north is not adequately acknowledged in the financial carve up of gate revenue.

"There's always a little bit of friction over the financial equation of world rugby," Pulver said.

"We don't enjoy ownership of our own stadia in the southern hemisphere and we don't enjoy all of the necessarily large stadia the northern hemisphere enjoys, so when we tour up there in November, certainly the RFU, to use Ian Ritchie as an example, enjoy a phenomenal financial outcome.

"You'd like to think that these relationships are a partnership, that it takes two teams to deliver that sort of outcome, so that's why the general perspective is that you're looking for a fair an equitable financial outcome from this relationship. That's all we're trying to achieve."

The Wallabies and All Blacks are big drawcards when they head north for November tours and the SANZAAR nations want that reflected in the financial carve up of gate revenue.

The current Test tour agreement, which takes in a World Cup every four years, a British and Irish Lions tour every four years, annual southern hemisphere tours in June, plus annual northern hemisphere tours in November, is divided along the lines of a host-takes-all arrangement.

When England toured Australia this year, the ARU pocketed all the gate revenue, as well as any sponsorship deals which, embarrassingly, fell well short. Similarly, when Australia embark on their spring tour, they make no money from Tests they play, unless a match falls outside the official November touring window. This year the Wallabies have organised a Test against England outside the window, and the RFU will pay the ARU a fee of about $1.6 million.

ARU boss Bill Pulver says there will be no let up from the SANZAAR nations in their quest for a revenue-share agreement for the new Test schedule.

The exception to the usual agreement is the World Cup, which sees World Rugby retain the lions share of profits from the tournament but "compensate" participating tier one nations for their loss of domestic revenue.

Pulver acknowledged that Lions tours also delivered revenue bonanzas to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, but only once every 12 years.

"The Lions tour is a very good tour for the south as well, so you have to add that in to an overall equation. The numbers are not ridiculously out of balance when you account for the Lions but, while the north look at it as a tour every four years, for each of us individually it is a tour every 12 years," he said.

"So while it's a wonderful tour that fans embrace wholeheartedly it's frustrating that you only get it once every 12 years. That's why we're trying to drive a financial outcome that's fair to everybody and accommodates all the different components of the calendar."

The southern hemisphere nations are also pushing for the June Test window to be moved to July, to give Super Rugby an uninterrupted run from February to the end of June.

Such a change would require the northern hemisphere unions to push back a month the English and Pro12 club competitions and re-format the French Top 14 from after the 2019 World Cup.

Pulver confirmed that the northern hemisphere nations were open to the change but wanted in return a year off the June (or July) Test tours after every World Cup.

"That is one of the items they have on the agenda and it is one I am really not comfortable with at all, because that would fundamentally change the financial outcome for us," he said.

"The three Tests we play in June are significant revenue generators for us and if you change them in any way you change the financial model pretty fundamentally."

I'm seeing the "Can we have some of your money" part but I'm still missing the "in return for..." part of the proposal.

I'm still missing the "in return for..." part of the proposal.

perhaps it's

"Can we have some money so that we can build and maintain large expensive stadia ourselves and share out the profits when you head south"

One of the major problems is marketing. Say the WRU heavily markets Wales vs. AUS to sell all the tickets at their own expense... should the ARU benefit from such expenditure without it being taken into account onto their own slice?

Then we need to think about how much team x is adding to the revenue stream. Twickenham sells out every England game be it the NZ, SA, Fiji, Samoa or Georgia. It doesn't matter if demand for NZ tickets is more, prices are the same generally speaking if I recall and therefore they will get no more money for Fiji then they will NZ.

If there is a bounce in attendance i.e. half full to full then perhaps there is an argument but marketing costs etc would also need to be addressed?

It could get to a stage where unions would prefer not to market games at all because it wasn't worth the cost where they would simply hand over any gains to the visitors.

Not quite, fa. NZ, SA, Aus, France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland sell out Twickenham with ease at full price. Italy, Argentina and the Pacific Islands generally have some sort of ticket deal - e.g. 2 for 1 or discounted prices for kids.

But basically, your argument is sound. The RFU doesn't make any more money from NZ than they do from the other top tier nations. It's not even as if they have to advertise that hard, because so many of the tickets just go via rugby clubs.

So it's kind of hard to see what NZ are offering in return, other than the privilege of playing the All Blacks. Players want that, and fans want that. But I can't see fans going "oh, I can't be bothered to go to the AIs this year, because the All Blacks aren't playing."

That's one reason why it rankles so much. NZ are just going after the RFU's deep pockets, and offering not much in return

I don't see NZ in trouble although it does seem their financial strength is being tested to the max. They aren't seeing a player drain in terms of the top players in the country like we see in SA. The biggest loss was probably Gareth Anscombe who traded up a NZ squad selection for better opportunities with Wales, its not exactly a mortal blow.

If they were smart they would concentrate all their energies on new markets in Asia; Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan. Build out their profile there hosting matches and becoming the de facto team in rich but poor rugby nations.

The only thing they're missing though is an icon. Brilliant players yes but they don't have a Lomu type player that transcends the sport.

Fa. New Zealand has a whole team that transcends the sport, not just one individual.