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

I would say the 97 team had a far greater aura with the wider public globally speaking regardless of their current outstanding consistency.

Think Mehrtens, Cullen, Lomu, Brooke, Fitzpatrick, Wilson... those guys were seen as genuine icons and Lomu was probably up there with the top 5 sportsmen on the planet. As good as NZ are now, I just don't see it with the current batch of players.

Yet anyhow, they should certainly not bother pinching money from other nations... The north have the lions tour and its such an important cash cow to the 3N teams. Its under serious threat at the moment.

Are you suggesting that it costs the RU more to promote/market ticket sales and television rights to the 2016 All Blacks than the 1997 team?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Are you suggesting that it costs the RU more to promote/market ticket sales and television rights to the  2016 All Blacks than the 1997 team?

not at all. Just that from a marketing point of view I would see the 97 players as having higher profiles. A Jonah type probably won't be seen in the game for another 100 years.

How many people on here could list the NZ 23 man for man without looking it up? Doesn't mean they aren't great players. Kiwis not inc. obviously

fa0019 wrote:not at all. Just that from a marketing point of view I would see the 97 players as having higher profiles. A Jonah type probably won't be seen in the game for another 100 years.

I remember him signing for Cardiff Blues. The game for his home debut was a sell out, against Calvisano, he even had man of the match and he didn't really do anything. But there was a full house there, and trust me, there is NEVER a full house for an Italian team, but such was his stature the people came to watch from far and wide.

Will we ever see that type of pull from a player again ? I very much doubt it.

No Im not discussing this from the point of view as to whether one team was better than the other. Im looking at it from the cost to the RU in hosting the game and whether this current team by not having the global marquis players its affecting the returns to RU.

I think you raise a very good point, but isnt it a situation where you change the marketing emphasis and direction?

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:not at all. Just that from a marketing point of view I would see the 97 players as having higher profiles. A Jonah type probably won't be seen in the game for another 100 years.

I remember him signing for Cardiff Blues. The game for his home debut was a sell out, against Calvisano, he even had man of the match and he didn't really do anything. But there was a full house there, and trust me, there is NEVER a full house for an Italian team, but such was his stature the people came to watch from far and wide.

Will we ever see that type of pull from a player again ? I very much doubt it.

Did they charge a higher ticket price in light of the occasion?

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:not at all. Just that from a marketing point of view I would see the 97 players as having higher profiles. A Jonah type probably won't be seen in the game for another 100 years.

I remember him signing for Cardiff Blues. The game for his home debut was a sell out, against Calvisano, he even had man of the match and he didn't really do anything. But there was a full house there, and trust me, there is NEVER a full house for an Italian team, but such was his stature the people came to watch from far and wide.

Will we ever see that type of pull from a player again ? I very much doubt it.

The 97 ABs trained close to home during those AIs. Literally every other highschool boy bunked off to see one guy practice and most weren't even rugby enthusiasts. The minute play stopped kids were barraging past all other players like they were water boys to get to Jonah. I wonder if any kids would even venture down today under the same circumstances?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:not at all. Just that from a marketing point of view I would see the 97 players as having higher profiles. A Jonah type probably won't be seen in the game for another 100 years.

I remember him signing for Cardiff Blues. The game for his home debut was a sell out, against Calvisano, he even had man of the match and he didn't really do anything. But there was a full house there, and trust me, there is NEVER a full house for an Italian team, but such was his stature the people came to watch from far and wide.

Will we ever see that type of pull from a player again ? I very much doubt it.

Did they charge a higher ticket price in light of the occasion?

Um, NO.

fa0019 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:not at all. Just that from a marketing point of view I would see the 97 players as having higher profiles. A Jonah type probably won't be seen in the game for another 100 years.

I remember him signing for Cardiff Blues. The game for his home debut was a sell out, against Calvisano, he even had man of the match and he didn't really do anything. But there was a full house there, and trust me, there is NEVER a full house for an Italian team, but such was his stature the people came to watch from far and wide.

Will we ever see that type of pull from a player again ? I very much doubt it.

The 97 ABs trained close to home during those AIs. Literally every other highschool boy bunked off to see one guy practice and most weren't even rugby enthusiasts. The minute play stopped kids were barraging past all other players like they were water boys to get to Jonah. I wonder if any kids would even venture down today under the same circumstances?

There was an incident last year during the World Cup when a few noises were made regarding the lack of marketability of Ben Smith.

At an open media event in London the media gunned for Mccaw, Carter, Nonu etc and Ben Smith quietly stood back and after a while walked around the media cordon and carried on completely unnoticed, the trouble is he is considered down here in New Zealand as a top class player and he actually can give some very informative interviews.

LordDowlais wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:not at all. Just that from a marketing point of view I would see the 97 players as having higher profiles. A Jonah type probably won't be seen in the game for another 100 years.

I remember him signing for Cardiff Blues. The game for his home debut was a sell out, against Calvisano, he even had man of the match and he didn't really do anything. But there was a full house there, and trust me, there is NEVER a full house for an Italian team, but such was his stature the people came to watch from far and wide.

Will we ever see that type of pull from a player again ? I very much doubt it.

Did they charge a higher ticket price in light of the occasion?

Um, NO.

If you have a show room full of Ferraris with Toyota Corolla price tags, they will definitely sell.

aucklandlaurie wrote:If you have a show room full of Ferraris with Toyota Corolla price tags, they will definitely sell.

And your point being ?

I acknowledge that it was a sellout for Jonah Lomu, not Calvisano, so I do not know what point you are trying to make.

But I will say, that the Principality Stadium will sell out, for almost every game, whether we are playing New Zealand or not, and the ticket prices are the same for New Zealand as they are for England, Ireland, France ect.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:not at all. Just that from a marketing point of view I would see the 97 players as having higher profiles. A Jonah type probably won't be seen in the game for another 100 years.

I remember him signing for Cardiff Blues. The game for his home debut was a sell out, against Calvisano, he even had man of the match and he didn't really do anything. But there was a full house there, and trust me, there is NEVER a full house for an Italian team, but such was his stature the people came to watch from far and wide.

Will we ever see that type of pull from a player again ? I very much doubt it.

Did they charge a higher ticket price in light of the occasion?

Um, NO.

If you have a show room full of Ferraris with Toyota Corolla price tags, they will definitely sell.

To be fair to him, Lomu by then was a 10yr old masarati with 200,000 km on the clock.. i.e. being held together by rubber bands. Still worth his weight in gold.... that's a lot of gold!

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:not at all. Just that from a marketing point of view I would see the 97 players as having higher profiles. A Jonah type probably won't be seen in the game for another 100 years.

I remember him signing for Cardiff Blues. The game for his home debut was a sell out, against Calvisano, he even had man of the match and he didn't really do anything. But there was a full house there, and trust me, there is NEVER a full house for an Italian team, but such was his stature the people came to watch from far and wide.

Will we ever see that type of pull from a player again ? I very much doubt it.

Did they charge a higher ticket price in light of the occasion?

Um, NO.

If you have a show room full of Ferraris with Toyota Corolla price tags, they will definitely sell.

It begs the question, why do NZ keep their Ferraris in a cramped, little garage where hardly anyone can see them? Build yourselves a proper showroom.

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:not at all. Just that from a marketing point of view I would see the 97 players as having higher profiles. A Jonah type probably won't be seen in the game for another 100 years.

I remember him signing for Cardiff Blues. The game for his home debut was a sell out, against Calvisano, he even had man of the match and he didn't really do anything. But there was a full house there, and trust me, there is NEVER a full house for an Italian team, but such was his stature the people came to watch from far and wide.

Will we ever see that type of pull from a player again ? I very much doubt it.

Did they charge a higher ticket price in light of the occasion?

Um, NO.

If you have a show room full of Ferraris with Toyota Corolla price tags, they will definitely sell.

It begs the question, why do NZ keep their Ferraris in a cramped, little garage where hardly anyone can see them? Build yourselves a proper showroom.

Well, they actually they keep their Ferraris in small garages around the country, so everyone can see them...unlike other countries.

The problem is pop density. Population similar to Scotland but with a population density 4 times less. You can build all the showrooms you like but you won't be able to fill it.

but hey, life is unfair.

I think that revenue sharing should probably be interpreted as profit sharing.

In any normal business arrangement, the costs of the event - ticketing, marketing, promotions, set-up costs, staging, etc would be set against and deducted from overall revenue.  

It would appear that up to now, fees are paid to the visiting team and what may be sought is an increased fixed fee from the match.   This, however, places the burden and risk on the host union, as effectively the fixed fee becomes another "cost" on their books.

Two other points.   It's interesting that Pulver confirms the financial status of the Lions tours and how that helps to largely balance the books, albeit only once every 12 years.   I would have thought that if revenue sharing were to be entertained as a principle then it would need to extend all touring matches, including the Lions.  

Whilst England's RFU is being picked out as the easy target by SH union commentators, the principle would have to be established that it will work for the smallest union with least amount of revenue and/or smallest stadia.   Ireland and Italy the likely unions in this regard.   There's also the matter of debenture sales and how much they comprise ticket allocations for test matches during the year.   This money is likely already spent on the cost of the building the stadium, so should that be taken out of the equation?

Secondly, I think the existing ticket sales and marketing operations in the four SH unions need to be examined more thoroughly and some operational criteria applied to same.  

The promotion of June tours in respective nations could be improved in the host country.   Portraying visiting teams from NH as easybeats, warm-up matches for the RC, lucky or second-string teams is hardly going to get the armchair fan along to a 'must-see match'.   For example, contrast the promotional ads by Supersport on SA TV for the recent Ireland series https://youtu.be/Rw9ypyRhmq4 or https://youtu.be/XxvtPpp3YXw Vs. what RTE Irish TV did for November 2014 tours incl SA.   https://youtu.be/ijACHUOH3Dc

Minimum size of stadia to be used for test matches - 50k?
Less than full ownership of national stadia is an issue in France, Ireland and Italy similar to Australia.

Some sensible stuff there, Pot Hale. I think it's reasonable for there to be a discussion about a global revenue sharing framework. There are several things that would need to be worked out in that. For example:
- Ideally you'd want to incentivise the teams with big stadia to host the poorer nations as well as the big boys...
-...but in a way that ensures some of that revenue goes back to the poorer nations
-...and in a way that still makes it worth the host unions' while
-...and recognises the investment they make in stadia and the costs and risks of running the game
- And for the Lions in particular, it's only fair that the Lions should share some of the revenue if other inbound touring teams do, but how does it get divide between the home unions? 25% each doesn't really cut it, but neither does the other extreme of dividing it by squad split.

I don't think the cost of building stadia should be excluded, either. For one thing, if it's financed by debt it's not entirely a sunk cost. More importantly, it doesn't incentivise development of stadia.

A possible model is something that says that tourists should get a flat fee up to a benchmark point and then a share of profit from ticket sales above that point. (This is actually reasonably close to how the RWC model works, albeit on a much bigger scale and with much more risks for the hosts).

Attendances at Millennium Stadium 2014-2016 (WRU website)

66,974 Italy 6N
73,086 France 6N
73,547 Scotland 6N
55,004 Australia AI
61,326 Fiji AI
73,500 New Zealand AI
58,235 South Africa AI
73,815 England 6N
73,950 Ireland 6N
73,500 Ireland RWC WU
52,981 Italy RWC WU
71,887 Uruguay RWC
71,576 Fiji RWC
74,160 Scotland 6N
74,160 France 6N
74,160 Italy 6N

So, basically, there's no real difference between anyone except Italy and, erm, Australia. Everyone else can fill the Millennium (I'm assuming that there's been some variation in maximum capacity over time - 74,160 is too specific and consistent not to be a current maximum)

Poorfour wrote:So, basically, there's no real difference between anyone except Italy and, erm, Australia. Everyone else can fill the Millennium (I'm assuming that there's been some variation in maximum capacity over time - 74,160 is too specific and consistent not to be a current maximum)

In the relatively short time period, the matches that jump out at me, Poorfour, are:

55,004 Australia AI
61,326 Fiji AI
58,235 South Africa AI
52,981 Italy RWC WU

I think Italy gets higher crowds than that normally - this year's 6N was a full house apparently.

I checked but didn't include 2013 autumn Internationals - same issue with Australia and South Africa - they don't fill the stadium - only 75% approx. Surprising.

Pot Hale wrote:Attendances at Millennium Stadium 2014-2016 (WRU website)

66,974 Italy 6N
73,086 France 6N
73,547 Scotland 6N
55,004 Australia AI
61,326 Fiji AI
73,500 New Zealand AI
58,235 South Africa AI
73,815 England 6N
73,950 Ireland 6N
73,500 Ireland RWC WU
52,981 Italy RWC WU
71,887 Uruguay RWC
71,576 Fiji RWC
74,160 Scotland 6N
74,160 France 6N
74,160 Italy 6N

But can you tell us Pot if the ticket prices were the same? if theyre not then you run a risk of comparing apples with water melons.

aucklandlaurie wrote:But can you tell us Pot if the ticket prices were the same? if theyre not then you run a risk of comparing apples with water melons.

You have already been told this, tickets for New Zealand are not more expensive than tickets for England, Ireland, France ect...

Ok so lets say there was profit sharing for all test games.I think another issue is stadium size and venue location.

Take Scotland for instance. Nearly always uses Murrayfield with a capacity of 67,000. In the last 10 years they have hosted the 3N sides 13 times all at Murrayfield.
During the same period they have only been granted 5 matches in the SH. During which not once were they given the national stadium and were sent to Port Elizabeth twice (46,000), Durban (38,000), Nelspruit (46,000) and Newcastle (33,000).

Now you can talk about Scotland deserving test matches in the best stadiums all you want but from a financial point of view why should Scotland host these countries in their national stadium with near double the capacity (with a metropolitan population of only 1.3 million) and share the profits whilst they are hosted in near backwater small stadiums and not given like for like treatment?

Its double standards. You want fairness then all teams should be hosted in like for like stadiums. If you want to profit share with Scotland then when you host Scotland you should give them games in similar sized stadiums (which all 3 have btw).

Its the same for all teams.

fa, I agree to some extent, but laurie has a valid point that NZ and Aus are geographically much bigger countries than the home nations and in fairness terms there's a fan angle too - it's not great for fans outside the capitals if all the games are played in stadia they can't easily reach.

We also need to factor in the Lions - not sure of the stadium capacity, but if you factor in the Lions that's 6 more tests. Still not comparable as Scotland would only get a part share of any revenue share, but it rebalances things a bit.

That said, it's a clear issue. Any kind of revenue sharing is only going to move money North to South. In effect, it's a subsidy from the NH teams to the SH ones. Question is, under what conditions is that worth paying?

I would want it to benefit the likes of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga and not just NZ, both directly and in terms of a regular game schedule with SH and NH teams for them. And I'd want it to be tied to commitments to develop the game and the capacity of stadia over time so that things get more into balance.

It can't just be a bung to the All Blacks, it has to grow the game as a whole.

I think its a case of a transparent level playing field if these rules were to be suggested and even implemented.

The 3N countries are far bigger granted but the mentality in the SH is different. I would say the difference is that in the NH, fans are rugby fans whereas in the SH fans are springbok, wallaby, AB fans. Outside of their own teams they have little care.
If SA was to play NZ in Sydney I think you might get 20,000 at a push. In the NH it would sell out.

Argentina played AUS at twickenham. People said it was half empty but it still was the 3rd highest gate of all 12 matches which without any traditional fan base is impressive.

It could be down to success i.e. "the 3N are the best teams in the world, I only watch first class rugby" but I think whilst that may have been true 20 years ago, the quality of the 6N teams in terms of competitiveness is very much improved, even if results are not that much better.

I admit it takes a lot to get SA friends interested in going to watch NH rugby without bok interest. Club rugby if Sarries are playing then fine but otherwise only if it happens to be on TV.