Are New Zealand getting too big for their boots ?

by LordDowlais Mon 08 Aug 2016, 9:22 am

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/

by lostinwales Wed 10 Aug 2016, 4:21 pm

I wonder what share of the gate receipts home nation teams get playing out in NZ

by LordDowlais Wed 10 Aug 2016, 4:24 pm

lostinwales wrote:I wonder what share of the gate receipts home nation teams get playing out in NZ

None probably.

In fact, they probably make us pay for the privilege, sorry the honour, of going to New Zealand to play them. Laugh

by marty2086 Wed 10 Aug 2016, 4:35 pm

The problem with NZs threats is that if everyone else signs up to World Rugbys new schedule and they don't they are out on their own

Given that Super Rugby and the SH teams are the ones struggling it would seem to be logical that they make the changes as their current schedule isn't working for them as their domestic and test crowds are the problem

Rather than changing the 6Ns surely the Rugby Championship moving to earlier in the year during the 6Ns window would shorten their season. They aren't helped by playing a 3rd Test every year against the Aus and then the AIs

by Pot Hale Wed 10 Aug 2016, 6:14 pm

Sin é wrote:It seems to be a bit of a strike against England and Wales, with Scotland, France and Ireland left out of it.

I wonder how much they are paying Ireland to go to Chicago to play them there?

It's a 50/50 split. Ireland would generate as much crowd attendance in Chicago as New Zealand would.

The proposal from Tew is that revenue would be shared in both the June and November test windows.

So a three test series against South Africa by Ireland might get three gates of 45-50k each. The revenues from these would be split with the IRFU. What the percentages might be is not defined.

What were the attendances for the 3-test series against Wales this summer?

I can see why the English or Welsh RFUs might object since they have bigger capacity stadia. Since Ireland are restricted to using Lansdowne at 50k, a shared revenue model might end up being the same.

It's why I think a minimum stadium size would have to be imposed.

by Exiledinborders Thu 11 Aug 2016, 11:54 pm

Pot Hale wrote:
Sin é wrote:It seems to be a bit of a strike against England and Wales, with Scotland, France and Ireland left out of it.

I wonder how much they are paying Ireland to go to Chicago to play them there?

It's a 50/50 split. Ireland would generate as much crowd attendance in Chicago as New Zealand would.

The proposal from Tew is that revenue would be shared in both the June and November test windows.

So a three test series against South Africa by Ireland might get three gates of 45-50k each. The revenues from these would be split with the IRFU. What the percentages might be is not defined.

What were the attendances for the 3-test series against Wales this summer?

I can see why the English or Welsh RFUs might object since they have bigger capacity stadia. Since Ireland are restricted to using Lansdowne at 50k, a shared revenue model might end up being the same.

It's why I think a minimum stadium size would have to be imposed.

Over the years England have invested millions to expand Twickenham. What is the point if you have to hand over 50% of the gate to countries who have not made similar investments?

by Pot Hale Fri 12 Aug 2016, 5:12 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
Sin é wrote:It seems to be a bit of a strike against England and Wales, with Scotland, France and Ireland left out of it.

I wonder how much they are paying Ireland to go to Chicago to play them there?

It's a 50/50 split. Ireland would generate as much crowd attendance in Chicago as New Zealand would.

The proposal from Tew is that revenue would be shared in both the June and November test windows.

So a three test series against South Africa by Ireland might get three gates of 45-50k each. The revenues from these would be split with the IRFU. What the percentages might be is not defined.

What were the attendances for the 3-test series against Wales this summer?

I can see why the English or Welsh RFUs might object since they have bigger capacity stadia. Since Ireland are restricted to using Lansdowne at 50k, a shared revenue model might end up being the same.

It's why I think a minimum stadium size would have to be imposed.
Over the years England have invested millions to expand Twickenham. What is the point if you have to hand over 50% of the gate to countries who have not made similar investments?

Those countries might argue that a rich get richer philosophy is not the way to grow the game, but for those countries making investments from hard-earned income, they likely won't see it that way.

I see a report in the Rugby Paper says that NZ want double the fee they normally get for the proposed out of window match next year i.e. £1.5m to £3m. And the English RFU have said no and are going to cancel the fixture. I suspect that is the way things are going to happen going forward - individual negotiation around every test unless World Rugby puts some agreed diktat in place.

by Shifty Sun 14 Aug 2016, 2:53 pm

To be fair if you read the New Zealand article from their side they do clearly say they don't want to be devisive or cause problems in the world game, but they do want a dialogue on it. If they can't get anywhere then they'd prefer to organise their own tests to suit themselves, instead of World Rugby organising it for them. In all fairness there is nothing wrong with this.

What does annoy me a bit is New Zealand want to share the gate recipts when they play teams which is crazy in my opinion. New Zealand havent really bothered to expand their stadiums and their grounds at all, so this seems bonkers. In fact looking at international rugby grounds Eden park is actually in 21st place in terms of international grounds capacity. While 21st place is all they occupy in terms of the top 32 largest grounds!

Every other country has made the effort to invest in stadia and increase capacity in the world game except New Zealand now they want to milk off everyone elses hard work and expense. Finally the international game pays for the professional game in most countries in world rugby so I cant see anyone agreeing to less so New Zealand can take more, especially since the 6 Nations could easily be expanded to make up for any potential loss of income from playing the 4 nations teams. I'd be happy not to play them at all, and play the 6 nations home and away each year, and simply have 10 games.

Rank Stadium Capacity City Country Home Team
1 FNB Stadium 94,736 Johannesburg South Africa Some South Africa national rugby union team matches
2 ANZ Stadium 84,000 Sydney Australia Some Australia national team matches
3 Twickenham Stadium 82,000 London England England national team, Aviva Premiership final, London Sevens, London Women's Sevens final and third-place match
4 Stade de France 81,338 Saint-Denis[a 1] France Most France national team matches,[a 2] Top 14 final[1]
5 Millennium Stadium 74,500 Cardiff Wales Wales national team
6 Stadio Olimpico 73,000 Rome Italy Most Italy national team matches[a 3]
7 Murrayfield Stadium 67,800 Edinburgh Scotland Scotland national team, Edinburgh Rugby, Scotland Sevens (2007–2011)
8 Ellis Park Stadium 62,567 Johannesburg South Africa Lions, Golden Lions, some South Africa national team matches
9 Stade Vélodrome 60,013 Marseille France Some France national team matches, some Toulon matches
10 Etihad Stadium 56,347 Melbourne Australia Some Australia national team matches
11 Boris Paichadze Stadium 56,000 Tbilisi Georgia Many Georgia national team matches
12 Cape Town Stadium 55,000 Cape Town South Africa South Africa Sevens (2015–present)
National Stadium 55,000 Singapore Singapore Singapore Sevens (2016–present), some Sunwolves matches
14 Estadio Ciudad de La Plata 53,000 La Plata Argentina Some Argentina national team matches
15 Suncorp Stadium 52,500 Brisbane Australia Queensland Reds, some Australia national team matches
16 Kings Park Stadium 52,000 Durban South Africa Sharks, Sharks (Currie Cup), some South Africa national team matches
17 DHL Newlands 51,900 Cape Town South Africa Stormers, Western Province, some South Africa national team matches
18 Loftus Versfeld Stadium 51,762 Pretoria South Africa Bulls, Blue Bulls, some South Africa national team matches
19 Aviva Stadium 51,700 Dublin Ireland Ireland national rugby union team, some Leinster matches.
20 King Baudouin Stadium 51,122 Brussels Belgium Belgium national team
21 Eden Park 50,000 Auckland New Zealand Auckland Rugby Football Union, Blues, some New Zealand national team matches
The Sevens 50,000[a 4] Dubai United Arab Emirates Dubai Sevens, Dubai Women's Sevens, and most United Arab Emirates national team matches; also hosted most Arabian Gulf rugby union team matches before that team's 2010 breakup
23 Estadio José Amalfitani[a 5] 49,540 Buenos Aires Argentina Jaguares, some Argentina national team matches
24 Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium 48,459 Port Elizabeth South Africa Southern Kings, Eastern Province Kings, South Africa Sevens (2011–2014), some South Africa national team matches
25 Allianz Stadium 45,500 Sydney Australia New South Wales Waratahs, Australian Sevens (2016–present)
26 Toyota Stadium 45,000 Toyota Japan Toyota Verblitz
27 Patersons Stadium 42,922 Perth Australia Some Australia national team matches
28 Hong Kong Stadium 40,000 Wanchai Hong Kong Hong Kong national team, Hong Kong Sevens
Stadio della Vittoria 40,000 Bari Italy
29 Sam Boyd Stadium 36,800 Las Vegas United States USA Sevens
30 Free State Stadium 36,538 Bloemfontein South Africa Free State Cheetahs, some Central Cheetahs matches
31 Allianz Riviera 35,624 Nice France Some Toulon matches[a 6]
Renato Dall'Ara Stadium 35,624 Bologne Italy Rugby
32 Stadium Municipal 35,472 Toulouse France Some Stade Toulousain matches[a 7]
33 Westpac Stadium 34,500 Wellington New Zealand Hurricanes, Wellington Rugby Football Union, some New Zealand national team matches, Wellington Sevens

Pot Hale wrote:It's a 50/50 split. Ireland would generate as much crowd attendance in Chicago as New Zealand would.

The proposal from Tew is that revenue would be shared in both the June and November test windows.

So a three test series against South Africa by Ireland might get three gates of 45-50k each. The revenues from these would be split with the IRFU. What the percentages might be is not defined.

What were the attendances for the 3-test series against Wales this summer?

I can see why the English or Welsh RFUs might object since they have bigger capacity stadia. Since Ireland are restricted to using Lansdowne at 50k, a shared revenue model might end up being the same.

It's why I think a minimum stadium size would have to be imposed.

Basically touring New Zealand is a non starter then using their own logic. It's only really worthwhile going to South Africa, and Australia. New Zealand have 30k capacity stadiums which is pointless. With the New Zealand exchange rate at $1nz to £0.50p Sterling. Multiplied by £85-95 per adult ticket, $25-35 per child for a New Zealand game at Eden park which has a capacity for 50k. You more or less end up with far less than what New Zealand already ask for when touring during a November game. Basically touring New Zealand is a bit like doing a charity trip. Worse still the pacific islands will never host a serious touring team again. So provided New Zealand don't want to host any international games then this works out fine.

by aucklandlaurie Sun 14 Aug 2016, 4:24 pm

I'm amazed how so many of you guys think this is an issue about who has the most seats in their stadia, its not, its about whether the current format of playing so many tests in a year is sustainable, because of the financial demands.

If it was merely about the size of stadia then I would respectfully suggest that you cannot look at the number of seats in isolation, without in concert looking at the price that those seats are sold for, especially when a "certain" team travels to the UK which it does every year.

New Zealand (Tew) is trying to achieve dialogue on the issue, which he has done with a number of the French clubs and Bill Beaumont, but while many prejudge the issue as being simply about the number of seats in stadia, dismiss his attempts at dialogue, then the fixtures from 2019 just set the whole process off in repetition.

Someone has to stand up and draw a line in the sand, or players will end up having to play 51 weeks in a year, get a week off for Christmas and all we will be left with is a mediocre sport with a tired International product, for which no Television broadcaster will pay anywhere near top potential dollar, as it will not demand sufficient viewership or commercial potential.

Players can not be treated like cattle, their welfare is important, they are the ones that go out each week and put their bodies on the line. In the meantime New Zealand will not be accepting any more International fixtures after the 2019 tournament.

by Shifty Sun 14 Aug 2016, 5:28 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I'm amazed how so many of you guys think this is an issue about who has the most seats in their stadia, its not, its about whether the current format of playing so many tests in a year is sustainable, because of the financial demands.

If it was merely about the size of stadia then I would respectfully suggest that you cannot look at the number of seats in isolation, without in concert looking at the price that those seats are sold for, especially when a "certain" team travels to the UK which it does every year.

New Zealand (Tew) is trying to achieve dialogue on the issue, which he has done with a number of the French clubs and Bill Beaumont, but while many prejudge the issue as being simply about the number of seats in stadia, dismiss his attempts at dialogue, then the fixtures from 2019 just set the whole process off in repetition.

Someone has to stand up and draw a line in the sand, or players will end up having to play 51 weeks in a year, get a week off for Christmas and all we will be left with is a mediocre sport with a tired International product, for which no Television broadcaster will pay anywhere near top potential dollar, as it will not demand sufficient viewership or commercial potential.

Players can not be treated like cattle, their welfare is important, they are the ones that go out each week and put their bodies on the line. In the meantime New Zealand will not be accepting any more International fixtures after the 2019 tournament.

In general I agree with most things New Zealand are saying, they haven't been as demanding and agressive in their views as the British press makes out. All theyve realy said is they want a discussion on the matter, and if it's not resolved they want to organise their own tests which is perfectly fair and reasonable.

Though clearly if it was all about player welfare why has the Super 6 been expanded so much? Tonga, Samoa and Fiji got slung out, and there are now 18 teams in the competition. So player welfare is an issue yet players are flying all over the place in an ever expanding competition?

The reason why you find hostility to sharing of gate recipts, is because four of the 6 Nations teams fund their professional game from money generated from the international game. Why is it fair Wales and Ireland spend a fortune building entirely new stadiums and Scotland pay for a massive redevelopment as well, only for New Zealand who choose to move their internationals all over their country and only build stadia of 30k capacity if that? Look at the logic, if every country has the right to organise their own tests, using the rules New Zealand want to use, who on earth would tour there? The 6 Nations would be better to play each other home and away each season, limit travel and not bother hiking half way across the world for a few peanuts.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 15 Aug 2016, 8:52 am

Shifty you are so right to raise the issue of Super Rugby expanding, New Zealand was gullible/naive to have let it expand to the extent it has, the trade off has been that with the conference system you do not play every other team in the competition, but you do travel all over the Globe. in six or seven years time when its up to about Super 25, teams will be playing in Brisbane, Buenos Aires, Bloemfontein followed by Bucharest. Its utter lunacy. Another thing New Zealand Rugby does do is limit the number of games that the Internationals (All Blacks) play for their franchise.

The reason why we don't understand the hostility to requesting sharing of gate receipts, is that the European unions achieve a lot of their revenue from not only gate receipts but moreover from television rights which are in turn sold all over the World (even New Zealand), and further all the six nations unions charge the highest premium for tickets to All Black tests than any other International teams.

It will be interesting to see if the six nations unions are prepared to sit down and listen to Tew, as he appears to be pretty determined on this one, not only for New Zealand's sake, but also the whole wellbeing of the International game.

by Irish Londoner Mon 15 Aug 2016, 8:57 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I'm amazed how so many of you guys think this is an issue about who has the most seats in their stadia, its not, its about whether the current format of playing so many tests in a year is sustainable, because of the financial demands.

If it was merely about the size of stadia then I would respectfully suggest that you cannot look at the number of seats in isolation, without in concert looking at the price that those seats are sold for, especially when a "certain" team travels to the UK which it does every year.

With the greatest respect Laurie, the home nations will sell out for any visiting team, if a "certain" team does not want to travel another team can take their place and the stadiums will still sell out. If New Zealand don't want to play with us, everyone else still will and with a sensible ticketing strategy even games against second tier visitors will be financial successes.

I understand the issues around too many games and ever lengthening seasons but these have no connection with NZRFU pretending to be Naomi Campbell !

by aucklandlaurie Mon 15 Aug 2016, 9:19 am

Irish Londoner wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I'm amazed how so many of you guys think this is an issue about who has the most seats in their stadia, its not, its about whether the current format of playing so many tests in a year is sustainable, because of the financial demands.

If it was merely about the size of stadia then I would respectfully suggest that you cannot look at the number of seats in isolation, without in concert looking at the price that those seats are sold for, especially when a "certain" team travels to the UK which it does every year.

With the greatest respect Laurie, the home nations will sell out for any visiting team, if a "certain" team does not want to travel another team can take their place and the stadiums will still sell out. If New Zealand don't want to play with us, everyone else still will and with a sensible ticketing strategy even games against second tier visitors will be financial successes.

I understand the issues around too many games and ever lengthening seasons but these have no connection with NZRFU pretending to be Naomi Campbell !

At no point Irish Londoner have I ever thought or suggested that the home nations couldnt/wouldnt sell out test matches involving any other country, the question is whether they could sell out the stadium at the ticket prices that they charge for All Black tests? and achieve the same return on the sale of broadcasting rights without the involvement of All Black tests?

Perhaps I'm a bit thick but I don't get the "pretending to be Naomi Campbell" remark or Naomi's involvement in Rugby jammed fixture lists, you will have to explain it to me.

by Exiledinborders Mon 15 Aug 2016, 9:29 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I'm amazed how so many of you guys think this is an issue about who has the most seats in their stadia, its not, its about whether the current format of playing so many tests in a year is sustainable, because of the financial demands.

If it was merely about the size of stadia then I would respectfully suggest that you cannot look at the number of seats in isolation, without in concert looking at the price that those seats are sold for, especially when a "certain" team travels to the UK which it does every year.

New Zealand (Tew) is trying to achieve dialogue on the issue, which he has done with a number of the French clubs and Bill Beaumont, but while many prejudge the issue as being simply about the number of seats in stadia, dismiss his attempts at dialogue, then the fixtures from 2019 just set the whole process off in repetition.

Someone has to stand up and draw a line in the sand, or players will end up having to play 51 weeks in a year, get a week off for Christmas and all we will be left with is a mediocre sport with a tired International product, for which no Television broadcaster will pay anywhere near top potential dollar, as it will not demand sufficient viewership or commercial potential.

Players can not be treated like cattle, their welfare is important, they are the ones that go out each week and put their bodies on the line. In the meantime New Zealand will not be accepting any more International fixtures after the 2019 tournament.

There are three things in question:
1) cutting down amount of rugby played by top players
2) aligning the SH & NH seasons
3) sharing the money from internationals

Most would agree that the amount of rugby played needs to be better controlled. If that is what Tew wants then fine.

Where many will fall out with many in the SH is demanding that the NH hemisphere makes all the accommodations to align the seasons. As for Tew's idea that SH teams who have not invested in stadia should gain the benefit of investments made by others that should be a non starter.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 15 Aug 2016, 9:41 am

Exiledinborders wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I'm amazed how so many of you guys think this is an issue about who has the most seats in their stadia, its not, its about whether the current format of playing so many tests in a year is sustainable, because of the financial demands.

If it was merely about the size of stadia then I would respectfully suggest that you cannot look at the number of seats in isolation, without in concert looking at the price that those seats are sold for, especially when a "certain" team travels to the UK which it does every year.

New Zealand (Tew) is trying to achieve dialogue on the issue, which he has done with a number of the French clubs and Bill Beaumont, but while many prejudge the issue as being simply about the number of seats in stadia, dismiss his attempts at dialogue, then the fixtures from 2019 just set the whole process off in repetition.

Someone has to stand up and draw a line in the sand, or players will end up having to play 51 weeks in a year, get a week off for Christmas and all we will be left with is a mediocre sport with a tired International product, for which no Television broadcaster will pay anywhere near top potential dollar, as it will not demand sufficient viewership or commercial potential.

Players can not be treated like cattle, their welfare is important, they are the ones that go out each week and put their bodies on the line. In the meantime New Zealand will not be accepting any more International fixtures after the 2019 tournament.
There are three things in question:
1) cutting down amount of rugby played by top players
2) aligning the SH & NH seasons
3) sharing the money from internationals

Most would agree that the amount of rugby played needs to be better controlled. If that is what Tew wants then fine.

Where many will fall out with many in the SH is demanding that the NH hemisphere makes all the accommodations to align the seasons. As for Tew's idea that SH teams who have not invested in stadia should gain the benefit of investments made by others that should be a non starter.

You are pretty well on the money with your three bullet points, there are many components to the cost of a test match, the investment in the stadia is only a part thereof. but everyone will have to make allowances it doesnt have to be a Northern Hemisphere versus Southern Hemisphere feud.

by Irish Londoner Mon 15 Aug 2016, 9:45 am

Naomi Campbell was the supermodel who said she wouldn't get of of bed for less than a million dollars.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 15 Aug 2016, 10:16 am

Irish Londoner wrote:Naomi Campbell was the supermodel who said she wouldn't get of of bed for less than a million dollars.

I still dont get it.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 15 Aug 2016, 10:25 am

NZ won't travel without a big payout comparison.

by Cyril Mon 15 Aug 2016, 10:34 am

Do NZ throw mobile phones at people?

by Irish Londoner Mon 15 Aug 2016, 10:44 am

Cyril wrote:Do NZ throw mobile phones at people?

no - just ridiculous financial demands !

by beshocked Mon 15 Aug 2016, 10:56 am

In regards to cutting down amount of top rugby played we could just rule out touring NZ....... Whistle

As for sharing, don't think there's that much of a struggle to sell tickets in internationals. Not for England anyway.

Not playing NZ for a few years would just make demand go up. We arguably have been playing them too much as it is in recent years.

NZ can try and throw their weight around and even make deals that don't include the likes of Wales and England but then they hurt their own revenue stream.

I personally think that England vs NZ matches are too big a cash cow not to milk.

I don't know the ins and outs of the deal - maybe it is unfair on the NZs, I don't know what the split is but NZ do need us more.

Hard to make demands when you don't hold all the aces.

by Recwatcher16 Mon 15 Aug 2016, 11:23 am

The reality is that the NZRU can now see the financial dead end for their centrally owned structure and wants to tap into the finances of those Unions who dont own (or control) their club hierarchy.

The players welfare is simple, you reduce club games, Tests or both. The reality is the NZRU don't believe they can do any of these unless they can achieve reduced or 'levelling' of finances for everyone else.

That works in some sports but not indefinitely.

by Pot Hale Mon 15 Aug 2016, 11:26 am

The running assumption in media coverage makes this a NH v SH battle or more specifically NZ v NH/6N/Home Unions.

The reality is that NZ tend to play more tests than other nations and do so because of financial cost burdens.

How many tests do different unions play each year? And what's an acceptable maximum number in terms of player welfare? How many is NZR or FFR advocating?

A 6N team has 5 Six Nations plus 3 June tests plus 3 November tests. 11 in total within WR designated windows.
A 4N team has 6 Four Natiins matches plus 3 in June and 3 in November.
How many are added on to those each year? NZ play Aus in an extra Bledisloe match. England and Wales have fourth internationals in November. Ireland have agreed to a fourth this year with the unusual fixture in Chicago against NZ. What about Scotland or Italy or South Africa?

by LordDowlais Mon 15 Aug 2016, 11:55 am

If New Zealand are concerned about player welfare, then fair enough, perhaps they should shorten their season. If New Zealand want a global season, then fair enough, perhaps they should lobby to align with the NH. As for sharing 50% of the gate receipts, fair enough, but they should alter their stadiums so that we can have the same 50% when we play them.

by **Rugby Fan** Mon 15 Aug 2016, 12:24 pm

As Pot Hale says, the media coverage is very shallow. All we get is some stated positions ("Revenue sharing please" or "No way we'll move the 6N") without any context.

I support New Zealand's decision to call a halt to the current cycle and call for a rethink. However, I can't get a grip on what everyone wants the global game to look like. I'm sure there are different views but, unless they are clearly stated, we can't understand what trade-offs are possible.

For instance, if NZ wants to cut down the Test calendar but not take a revenue hit for doing so, then it sounds like they don't particularly want to play teams like Georgia, Samoa, Canada, Fiji, Tonga or Romania. None of them are big crowd draws, and those unions haven't got big budgets to pay a bribe to the NZRU. If that's the case, then who is responsible for growing the game?

A lot of discussions in rugby seem to consist of unions, clubs etc bemoaning the fact that they haven't got enough money to break even, and trying to grab dough from someone else to make up for it.

At some point, you'd think it would be more practical to take a larger view of how money in the game is distributed, with a view to growing it across the board. If all we have are zero-sum negotiations, then no-one sees eye-to-eye. We end up with constant brinkmanship, along with wild attempts to snatch assets away from each other.

I haven't got a clue what the optimal organization of the game might look like, or even if there is such a thing. I do know we aren't going to find out if everyone just looks myopically at their own backyard.

by Pot Hale Mon 15 Aug 2016, 12:28 pm

LordDowlais wrote:If New Zealand are concerned about player welfare, then fair enough, perhaps they should shorten their season. If New Zealand want a global season, then fair enough, perhaps they should lobby to align with the NH. As for sharing 50% of the gate receipts, fair enough, but they should alter their stadiums so that we can have the same 50% when we play them.

What?

NZ should shorten their season? And they should alter their stadia?

How would that work with playing Wales for example?

by LordDowlais Mon 15 Aug 2016, 12:40 pm

Pot Hale wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:If New Zealand are concerned about player welfare, then fair enough, perhaps they should shorten their season. If New Zealand want a global season, then fair enough, perhaps they should lobby to align with the NH. As for sharing 50% of the gate receipts, fair enough, but they should alter their stadiums so that we can have the same 50% when we play them.
What?

NZ should shorten their season? And they should alter their stadia?

How would that work with playing Wales for example?

Here we go. Rolling Eyes

Shortening their season and changing their stadiums should have nothing to do with playing Wales.

What I am saying is, that if New Zealand want all these changes, then it should be them doing the changing. Why should the rest of the world change to suit New Zealand ? Why should New Zealand earn more money for playing up here than we do when playing down there. If they want a 50/50 split, then we should have the chance to earn the same when we go to New Zealand, and to do that they need to increase the capacity of their stadium.

by Sin é Mon 15 Aug 2016, 12:44 pm

England deserve what they can make from their own international games. They have a much larger population to service and made the decision to allow independent clubs to operate. The only reason England has loads of money is because they don't own their clubs. Why don't NZ do that. I'm sure there are plenty of wealth kiwis who would love to buytheir franchises.

Another point re the media. Don't NZ own the rights when NH teams play in the SH? I'd imagine the same number of people would watch England playing NZ in Twickers as NZ playing England in Christchurch.

by Pot Hale Mon 15 Aug 2016, 12:47 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:If New Zealand are concerned about player welfare, then fair enough, perhaps they should shorten their season. If New Zealand want a global season, then fair enough, perhaps they should lobby to align with the NH. As for sharing 50% of the gate receipts, fair enough, but they should alter their stadiums so that we can have the same 50% when we play them.
What?

NZ should shorten their season? And they should alter their stadia?

How would that work with playing Wales for example?

Here we go.

Shortening their season and changing their stadiums should have nothing to do with playing Wales.

What I am saying is, that if New Zealand want all these changes, then it should be them doing the changing. Why should the rest of the world change to suit New Zealand ? Why should New Zealand earn more money for playing up here than we do when playing down there. If they want a 50/50 split, then we should have the chance to earn the same when we go to New Zealand, and to do that they need to increase the capacity of their stadium.

So how many tests should be played each year by teams? What's the maximum number of tests do you think?

by Irish Londoner Mon 15 Aug 2016, 12:50 pm

Wouldn't the simple answer be to stop sharing gate money full stop, NZ keep the money generated there and the NH keep the money generated here. NZ can charge what they like for tickets, TV rights, merchandise etc. there and we do the same up here ? If the Kiwis don't want to come then no problem we don't come to you either.

With regard to player welfare, is the need to limit the number of games played by each team (either club or country) or the number of games played by individual players ? Set a limit on how many games a player has - somewhere between 25 and 45 a season - and you can have as many games as suits clubs and countries just with more squad involvement - like clubs do here with the LV and to some extent with the minor Euro cup.

As for a global season. ultimately the Gods of TV will dictate that rather than anyone else.

by LordDowlais Mon 15 Aug 2016, 12:55 pm

Pot Hale wrote:So how many tests should be played each year by teams? What's the maximum number of tests do you think?

I don't know. Why would you ask me that ?

I not the one lobbying for change. Ask the people who want to change things. I think things are fine the way they are.

Also, I agree 100% with Irish Londoner.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 15 Aug 2016, 1:10 pm

The problem with only considering tests is that it isn't the only impact upon players. Clubs will look to fill any gap as they try and increase revenue. There's already plenty of articles come the quarters and semis of the European games in relation to how unfair one legged ties are to the team forced to travel further afield.

by Pot Hale Mon 15 Aug 2016, 1:13 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:So how many tests should be played each year by teams? What's the maximum number of tests do you think?

I don't know. Why would you ask me that ?

I not the one lobbying for change. Ask the people who want to change things. I think things are fine the way they are.

Also, I agree 100% with Irish Londoner.

I'm asking for your opinion. For example, some Welsh fans don't like a fourth test being scheduled in November because it compromises the PRO 12 regions. So how many tests a year do you think Wales should play?

by LordDowlais Mon 15 Aug 2016, 1:35 pm

Pot Hale wrote: So how many tests a year do you think Wales should play?

Are you asking me this question whilst having nothing to do with the topic of conversation, or are you trying to tripe me up ?

The amount of tests we are playing now seems sufficient. We could do with dropping the 4th AI, but if that generates enough monies, and the regions agree to it, then fine.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 15 Aug 2016, 1:38 pm

All linked a bit LD

From the original article

“Every year, we’re getting asked to play extra games,” Hansen told Newstalk ZB.

“Tewie is right on the money. If we organise our own games, I’m sure we’ll get plenty of Northern Hemisphere takers who will to play us. They fill their stadiums when we play and they make a lot of money.”

The All Black head coach says that the global rugby community needs to work together to succeed in creating an international season.

“It just needs a willingness for everyone to look at it,” he said.

“Everyone will have to make some slight adjustments.”

by LordDowlais Mon 15 Aug 2016, 1:41 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:“Everyone will have to make some slight adjustments.”

Taking 50% of the gate reciepts when playing in Cardiff or London is not a "slight adjustment" though is it ?

by No 7&1/2 Mon 15 Aug 2016, 1:44 pm

An adjustment which could be made is AIs every other year and an extended tour from NH to Aus, NZ, Samoa etc. Doesn't have to be in the same format as now and something I think WR will be considering. Considerations like this need to be led by WR though and in conversation with clubs. Not an easy job for Beaumont et al.

by LordDowlais Mon 15 Aug 2016, 1:48 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:An adjustment which could be made is AIs every other year and an extended tour from NH to Aus, NZ, Samoa etc. Doesn't have to be in the same format as now and something I think WR will be considering. Considerations like this need to be led by WR though and in conversation with clubs. Not an easy job for Beaumont et al.

Again, that is not a "slight adjustment".

What New Zealand are asking for are pioneering changes, but for everybody else and not them. Why aren't we looking at the SH playing the RC at the same time as we play the 6N ?

I would also like us to play the European cups after the domestic season finishes, but I would not want to change the dates we play rugby just to suit New Zealand, and I also do not like being held to ransom to play them either.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 15 Aug 2016, 1:53 pm

As I said it's really up to WR to propose some ideas and then consult on them. I only see this as NZ raising their points of view. Your view about the timings of finals is also one many would agree with, but it needs that higher level discussion. As far as I'm concerned it makes perfect sense to have a global season putting us all on the same footing.

by Sin é Mon 15 Aug 2016, 1:54 pm

Well maybe leaving NZ out of the arrangement for everyone else might work. It would save NH teams having to travel to NZ every year.

by LordDowlais Mon 15 Aug 2016, 1:55 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:As far as I'm concerned it makes perfect sense to have a global season putting us all on the same footing.

I agree, but that does not mean that we pander to the SH and fit in with them. If they want a slice of the NH ££££'s, then they need to start aligning their season with ours.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 15 Aug 2016, 2:04 pm

And that again is why it should come from WR, from a perspective that isn't us vs them.

by Irish Londoner Mon 15 Aug 2016, 2:08 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
“Every year, we’re getting asked to play extra games,” Hansen told Newstalk ZB.

Then think of your players and not the money and turn them down ?

“Tewie is right on the money. If we organise our own games, I’m sure we’ll get plenty of Northern Hemisphere takers who will to play us. They fill their stadiums when we play and they make a lot of money.”

Yes they make a lot of money because they've invested in their stadiums and the commercial deals around the facilities there, they also fill their stadiums whoever they play - what's that got to do with New Zealand ?

The All Black head coach says that the global rugby community needs to work together to succeed in creating an international season. “It just needs a willingness for everyone to look at it,” he said.

It certainly does, but looking at it is not the same as agreeing to change it

“Everyone will have to make some slight adjustments.”

Looks more like you're going to have to...

by Pot Hale Mon 15 Aug 2016, 2:09 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Pot Hale wrote: So how many tests a year do you think Wales should play?

Are you asking me this question whilst having nothing to do with the topic of conversation, or are you trying to tripe me up ?

The amount of tests we are playing now seems sufficient. We could do with dropping the 4th AI, but if that generates enough monies, and the regions agree to it, then fine.

It is relevant to the topic of conversation - NZ want to have a global discussion about a number of issues including player welfare/safety which links to the number of games played each year. Tests are a big part of that. I've read complaints from Welsh fans before about the number of games that the WRU impose so was wondering what you think the limit should be. So I think you're saying it should be 5+3+3 each season ideally. No extra matches against NZ for example in December or likeagainst England in May this year as another example - is that right?

by LordDowlais Mon 15 Aug 2016, 2:14 pm

Pot Hale wrote:So I think you're saying it should be 5+3+3 each season ideally. No extra matches against NZ in December or against England in May this year for example - is that right?

Ideally yes. That game against England just gone was a farce. Also I am not a lover of the fourth AI, but if the regions agree to it, then I see no problem with the extra fixtures, but outside of a WC year, it should be 6N, AI, summer tours, and that's it. Although what that has to do with New Zealand wanting more money for playing us I do not know.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 15 Aug 2016, 2:21 pm

So basically NZ are saying it's not quite working for us and the reply is, it works for us jog on.

by Pot Hale Mon 15 Aug 2016, 2:38 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:So I think you're saying it should be 5+3+3 each season ideally. No extra matches against NZ in December or against England in May this year for example - is that right?

Ideally yes. That game against England just gone was a farce. Also I am not a lover of the fourth AI, but if the regions agree to it, then I see no problem with the extra fixtures, but outside of a WC year, it should be 6N, AI, summer tours, and that's it. Although what that has to do with New Zealand wanting more money for playing us I do not know.

So if the fourth AI is against NZ, then the WRU pays them to play. Or any other SANZAR team scheduled in that slot in previous years.

It comes down to how many matches test teams can reasonably play in a season and what revenue they gain from it. That's true for NZ as it is for Wales. The WRU has a minimum number of test matches it wants to play each year because of their finances, and based on attendances, tickets, venue. Out of window games make more money for the away team. Or additional money if it's a neutral venue e.g. NZ v Irl, Chicago.

by Irish Londoner Mon 15 Aug 2016, 2:38 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So basically NZ are saying it's not quite working for us and the reply is, it works for us jog on.

In regard to player welfare all NZ have to do is say no to additional (but money making) tests.

In regard to getting paid half the gate money just for showing up then yes, jog on.....

by Pot Hale Mon 15 Aug 2016, 2:41 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So basically NZ are saying it's not quite working for us and the reply is, it works for us jog on.

Not sure about that, 7.5.

It may suit the Welsh and English rugby unions, but it may not suit French, Irish, Scottish, Italian. Equally, NZRU are not the only SH team - Australia is very much in the same boat.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 15 Aug 2016, 2:43 pm

Which is from the point of view of someone this side of the coin. Now should WR be looking at the thoughts of everyone and deciding if the current model works? For me the answer is yes. And they need to do it with the leagues as well otherwise it's pointless.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 15 Aug 2016, 2:44 pm

Pot Hale wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So basically NZ are saying it's not quite working for us and the reply is, it works for us jog on.

Not sure about that, 7.5.

It may suit the Welsh and English rugby unions, but it may not suit French, Irish, Scottish, Italian. Equally, NZRU are not the only SH team - Australia is very much in the same boat.

Yup, it needs to be considered from all angles and compromise reached.

by Sponsored content