Lions to tour Argentina/Japan

Would anyone like the Lions to tour Argentina/Japan?

In a couple of years Argentina could make a decent claim to be worthy opponents for the Lions, and I'd probably be more likely to want to tour there, especially if it took in Mendoza.

But given NZ's current stance on sharing of test revenues, how would that square with them having to wait 16 years for the moneyspinner rather than 12?

Poorfour wrote:In a couple of years Argentina could make a decent claim to be worthy opponents for the Lions, and I'd probably be more likely to want to tour there, especially if it took in Mendoza.

But given NZ's current stance on sharing of test revenues, how would that square with them having to wait 16 years for the moneyspinner rather than 12?

You could host a Lions tour every 3 years as opposed to every 4 years.

Or maybe even every 2 years.

Could have 1 invitational test match in the run up to the series! Such as the Lions playing Argentina in Hong Kong as they did prior to the OZ tour.

Reducing the time between tours would IMO devalue the Lions.

The Lions have toured Argentina historically. They toured in 1910, 1927 and 1936. There is no reason why they should not tour now, in fact, given New Zealand's stance about fairness, and sharing the wealth and the what not, I would think that New Zealand would be fully behind the Lions touring another country, just to make it fair.

LordDowlais wrote:The Lions have toured Argentina historically. They toured in 1910, 1927 and 1936. There is no reason why they should not tour now, in fact, given New Zealand's stance about fairness, and sharing the wealth and the what not, I would think that New Zealand would be fully behind the Lions touring another country, just to make it fair.

The reason is that Argentina may not have the economy and infrastructure to host the tour, the tour has to generate revenue for the Lions, host nation and four home unions who 3 years ago received £6m each

marty2086 wrote:The reason is that Argentina may not have the economy and infrastructure to host the tour,

Your kidding me right ?

Argentina's infrastructure is far superior to New Zealand. Do you not remember the farce of a world cup held out there in 2011 ? Half empty stadiums ? Come on mun.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:The reason is that Argentina may not have the economy and infrastructure to host the tour,

Your kidding me right ?

Argentina's infrastructure is far superior to New Zealand. Do you not remember the farce of a world cup held out there in 2011 ? Half empty stadiums ? Come on mun.

How does one equal the other?

marty, you said Argentina do not have the infrastructure to host a Lions tour. I simply implying, that if New Zealand do, then Argentina should as well.

LordDowlais wrote:marty, you said Argentina do not have the infrastructure to host a Lions tour. I simply implying, that if New Zealand do, then Argentina should as well.

No you clearly said that Argentinas was far superior and used the RWC 2011 to back that up

When Ireland toured Argentina a few years ago they couldn't fill the stadiums

marty2086 wrote:hen Ireland toured Argentina a few years ago they couldn't fill the stadiums

but what has that got to do with them not having the infrastructure to host a Lions tour. They have a better one, perhaps not a far superior one as I first suggested, but if New Zealand can host a WC and a Lions tour, then Argentina should easily do it.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:hen Ireland toured Argentina a few years ago they couldn't fill the stadiums

but what has that got to do with them not having the infrastructure to host a Lions tour. They have a better one, perhaps not a far superior one as I first suggested, but if New Zealand can host a WC and a Lions tour, then Argentina should easily do it.

You do know what infrastructure is?

FFS.

I'm out.

marty, perhaps you should ask yourself that question.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:hen Ireland toured Argentina a few years ago they couldn't fill the stadiums

but what has that got to do with them not having the infrastructure to host a Lions tour. They have a better one, perhaps not a far superior one as I first suggested, but if New Zealand can host a WC and a Lions tour, then Argentina should easily do it.

You do know what infrastructure is?

John Oliver says that if it gets destroyed in a blockbuster action film, it's probably infrastructure

Throwing another fit

Okay, before this turns into an argument, Argentina should host the Lions and I would also like a PI tour. The problem with the Lions doing that is either you massively increase the length of the tour or you only tour a country once every 16-20 years. NZ, SA and Aus are all struggling to make ends meet at this point so none will commit to that (although if NZ get too greedy they can just be outright replaced).

I think there is an argument to be made that as transport improves that the 10 matches in New Zealand could be turned into 7 (lose the Maori, provincial union and one of the franchise games) and add the 3 to the PI's (Fiji, Samoa and Tonga) as a warm up tour.

Australia could be given 7 as well with an 8th game to be played in Tokyo against the Japanese. SA could have 7 with a warm up game against Argentina and/or Namibia. There is little loss of quality if there is no union provincial game (maybe Namibia but they looked okay at the WC).

It fills the need of new nations rising up or old nations that are struggling to get some money while maintaining the money for the old Tri Nations.

LordDowlais wrote:Do you not remember the farce of a world cup held out there in 2011 ? Half empty stadiums ? Come on mun.

A farce?

I think you don't know what you're talking about

marty2086 wrote:Throwing another fit

No. Not at all. For the umpteenth time on this forum you would rather argue over stupid, silly, trivial things than admit that you perhaps might have been wrong in what you have said. Look, I know what the word infrastructure means, and the fact that people were calling the 2011 world cup, the campervan world cup suggests that the infrastructure in New Zealand is perhaps not as good as other countries, but, if they can host a world cup and a Lions tour, then it would suggest that the infrastructure in New Zealand is good enough.

Now, if it is good enough in New Zealand, then it should be good enough in Argentina.

ebop wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Do you not remember the farce of a world cup held out there in 2011 ? Half empty stadiums ? Come on mun.

A farce?

I think you don't know what you're talking about

Wouldn't be the first time

Is it to increase the win record of the Lions?

ebop wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Do you not remember the farce of a world cup held out there in 2011 ? Half empty stadiums ? Come on mun.

A farce?

I think you don't know what you're talking about

As a spectacle, in terms of rugby on show, it was a success. But, New Zealand should never have had that WC in the first place, New Zealand could not afford it, and they could not fill the stadiums, and the tickets were too highly priced. Economically it was a farce, was there even a profit made from the 2011 WC ? I don't think there was.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Throwing another fit

No. Not at all. For the umpteenth time on this forum you would rather argue over stupid, silly, trivial things than admit that you perhaps might have been wrong in what you have said. Look, I know what the word infrastructure means, and the fact that people were calling the 2011 world cup, the campervan world cup suggests that the infrastructure in New Zealand is perhaps not as good as other countries, but, if they can host a world cup and a Lions tour, then it would suggest that the infrastructure in New Zealand is good enough.

Now, if it is good enough in New Zealand, then it should be good enough in Argentina.

Infrastructure includes roads, so if people were travelling by campervan then that would suggest that part of the infrastructure is in good nick, no?

Should be does not mean it is, especially with a stagnant economy making it hard to invest which I alluded to earlier on

There also the issue of stadiums and getting bums in seats, you need the locals going along not just the Lions fans

No thanks.

NZ, SA & Aus will go broke if they don't have a Lions Tour every 12 years. While Argentina might sound like a good idea from an economic point of view. They have decided to not bid to host the 2023 World Cup which would suggest that maybe they are not ready for such events just yet.

I don't know what the point of playing the PIs. What would be beneficial is to get them on the Autumn international rota and give them a percentage of the gate (though they do seem to have some issues with what they do with money they get).

LordDowlais wrote:

ebop wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Do you not remember the farce of a world cup held out there in 2011 ? Half empty stadiums ? Come on mun.

A farce?

I think you don't know what you're talking about

As a spectacle, in terms of rugby on show, it was a success. But, New Zealand should never have had that WC in the first place, New Zealand could not afford it, and they could not fill the stadiums, and the tickets were too highly priced. Economically it was a farce, was there even a profit made from the 2011 WC ? I don't think there was.

You are such an imperialist, Lord.  

At times I giggle but really, at other times, I wish you'd lose the pomposity.  

New Zealand had a right to a World Cup on better grounds than the tut-tut economics grounds you go on about.  It is the very flag waver for the very sport.  The best Union side that has ever existed.  The very trademark for the 15 a side game.

Get off your blustering high horse.  If Wales can host so many WC cup matches, even when they are not hosting!, then for certain the greatest rugby nation of them all, New Zealand, can host the full thing.  Buy a camper-van, forget the 5 star hotels - live a little.  The camper-van crowd had a brilliant experience that will live with them a lot longer than someone who flies out and in on first class all the way.

LordDowlais wrote:

ebop wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Do you not remember the farce of a world cup held out there in 2011 ? Half empty stadiums ? Come on mun.

A farce?

I think you don't know what you're talking about

As a spectacle, in terms of rugby on show, it was a success. But, New Zealand should never have had that WC in the first place, New Zealand could not afford it, and they could not fill the stadiums, and the tickets were too highly priced. Economically it was a farce, was there even a profit made from the 2011 WC ? I don't think there was.

You've got lovely green eyes

Blink again one more time please

I don't mind warm up tour matches (like AUS up until the 80s) but to be truthful since the 2007 world cup they have faced home nations sides 25 times and lost 19 of those.

Yet we argue we should send the best of all 4 to face them. Would be better than facing a under strength tour game. Not so sure about Japan.

Realistically you could have more nations involved in the Lions as warm ups. As it stands not sure a tour of Japan with the lions would generate the interest or money of a 'proper' tour.

international198 wrote:

You could host a Lions tour every 3 years as opposed to every 4 years.

Or maybe even every 2 years.

Oh I do hope not.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Realistically you could have more nations involved in the Lions as warm ups. As it stands not sure a tour of Japan with the lions would generate the interest or money of a 'proper' tour.

I think thats the best idea.

Cut tour games down to say 3 rather than 7. Play 3-4 warm ups vs. Italy, France, Argentina.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Realistically you could have more nations involved in the Lions as warm ups. As it stands not sure a tour of Japan with the lions would generate the interest or money of a 'proper' tour.

I think thats the best idea.

Cut tour games down to say 3 rather than 7. Play 3-4 warm ups vs. Italy, France, Argentina.

How do the 'host' side (NZ, AUS, SA) then get to nobble a few of the Lions best players without the mid-week games then? Never overlook the importance of those mid-week games.

Starts to tick 2 sets of boxes. Allows for instance teams like say Georgia to make some money, allows the European fans a chance to see the Lions at 'home'. Brings that new element people are starting to complain about. Probably takes too much money away from Aus, NZ and SA but there is a case that Aus in particular were rolling our weakened club sides so you reap what you sow in a way.

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Realistically you could have more nations involved in the Lions as warm ups. As it stands not sure a tour of Japan with the lions would generate the interest or money of a 'proper' tour.

I think thats the best idea.

Cut tour games down to say 3 rather than 7. Play 3-4 warm ups vs. Italy, France, Argentina.

How do the 'host' side (NZ, AUS, SA) then get to nobble a few of the Lions best players without the mid-week games then?  Never overlook the importance of those mid-week games.

They wait til 5 min into the 1st game like proper hosts.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Starts to tick 2 sets of boxes. Allows for instance teams like say Georgia to make some money, allows the European fans a chance to see the Lions at 'home'. Brings that new element people are starting to complain about. Probably takes too much money away from Aus, NZ and SA but there is a case that Aus in particular were rolling our weakened club sides so you reap what you sow in a way.

In 2009 SARU ordered the top 30 players be exempt from playing the tour matches. PDivvy even said it was legitimate to prevent the lions from preparing the best they could. Well the Lions should fight back... if you disrespect the tour, then we'll change it.

I'd suggest that if people admit they want to stop the Lions preparing the best, that's plenty respect.

Sin é wrote:NZ, SA & Aus will go broke if they don't have a Lions Tour every 12 years. While Argentina might sound like a good idea from an economic point of view. They have decided to not bid to host the 2023 World Cup which would suggest that maybe they are not ready for such events just yet.

I don't know what the point of playing the PIs. What would be beneficial is to get them on the Autumn international rota and give them a percentage of the gate (though they do seem to have some issues with what they do with money they get).

exactly how true is this? The Lions tour is obviously a huge money spinner... but does it really keep a Sanzar side going for 12 years?

kingraf wrote:

Sin é wrote:NZ, SA & Aus will go broke if they don't have a Lions Tour every 12 years. While Argentina might sound like a good idea from an economic point of view. They have decided to not bid to host the 2023 World Cup which would suggest that maybe they are not ready for such events just yet.

I don't know what the point of playing the PIs. What would be beneficial is to get them on the Autumn international rota and give them a percentage of the gate (though they do seem to have some issues with what they do with money they get).

exactly how true is this? The Lions tour is obviously a huge money spinner... but does it really keep a Sanzar side going  for 12 years?

the ARU ran up over 12m in debt in the 2 years prior to the 2013 tour, they got 40m from the tour.

It may not keep them going for the 12 year cycle but it plugs holes that spring up between RWCs

SecretFly wrote:I'd suggest that if people admit they want to stop the Lions preparing the best, that's plenty respect.

The Lions record against the 3N since 1989 is very good indeed.

Since 1989 (that time is just to give us enough test matches for the Lions to be a half decent stat)

Away wins vs. 3N sides %

NZ 54%
Lions 43%
ENG 29%
FRA 21%
AUS 20%
SA 16%
IRE 7%
SCO 4%
ARG 3%

WAL 0%

In the pro era the figures hardly change though.

NZ 57%
Lions 40%
ENG 28%
AUS 18%
FRA 15%
SA 16%
IRE 8%
SCO 6%
ARG 4%

WAL 0%

marty2086 wrote:

kingraf wrote:

Sin é wrote:NZ, SA & Aus will go broke if they don't have a Lions Tour every 12 years. While Argentina might sound like a good idea from an economic point of view. They have decided to not bid to host the 2023 World Cup which would suggest that maybe they are not ready for such events just yet.

I don't know what the point of playing the PIs. What would be beneficial is to get them on the Autumn international rota and give them a percentage of the gate (though they do seem to have some issues with what they do with money they get).

exactly how true is this? The Lions tour is obviously a huge money spinner... but does it really keep a Sanzar side going  for 12 years?

the ARU ran up over 12m in debt in the 2 years prior to the 2013 tour, they got 40m from the tour.

It may not keep them going for the 12 year cycle but it plugs holes that spring up between RWCs

So the RWC keep them going and every 12 years they receive a shot in the arm? Not nearly the same as being reliant on a Lions tour. semantics I suppose with respect to the whole discussion

kingraf wrote:
So the RWC keep them going and every 12 years they receive a shot in the arm? Not nearly the same as being reliant on a Lions tour. semantics I suppose with respect to the whole discussion

I think the SH teams need both to be honest, in recent times at least I think they earn more per Lions tour than during a RWC unless its at home but the RWC comes around more often

ebop wrote:You've got lovely green eyes

Blink again one more time please

Isn't that what Bakkies Botha said to Mike Phillips on the 2009 Lions tour ?

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Throwing another fit

No. Not at all. For the umpteenth time on this forum you would rather argue over stupid, silly, trivial things than admit that you perhaps might have been wrong in what you have said. Look, I know what the word infrastructure means, and the fact that people were calling the 2011 world cup, the campervan world cup suggests that the infrastructure in New Zealand is perhaps not as good as other countries, but, if they can host a world cup and a Lions tour, then it would suggest that the infrastructure in New Zealand is good enough.

Now, if it is good enough in New Zealand, then it should be good enough in Argentina.

Infrastructure includes roads, so if people were travelling by campervan then that would suggest that part of the infrastructure is in good nick, no?

Should be does not mean it is, especially with a stagnant economy making it hard to invest which I alluded to earlier on

There also the issue of stadiums and getting bums in seats, you need the locals going along not just the Lions fans

So do you now concede ? Or do you still think Argentina do not have the infrastructure to host a Lions tour ?

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

ebop wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Do you not remember the farce of a world cup held out there in 2011 ? Half empty stadiums ? Come on mun.

A farce?

I think you don't know what you're talking about

As a spectacle, in terms of rugby on show, it was a success. But, New Zealand should never have had that WC in the first place, New Zealand could not afford it, and they could not fill the stadiums, and the tickets were too highly priced. Economically it was a farce, was there even a profit made from the 2011 WC ? I don't think there was.

You are such an imperialist, Lord.  

At times I giggle but really, at other times, I wish you'd lose the pomposity.  

New Zealand had a right to a World Cup on better grounds than the tut-tut economics grounds you go on about.  It is the very flag waver for the very sport.  The best Union side that has ever existed.  The very trademark for the 15 a side game.

Get off your blustering high horse.  If Wales can host so many WC cup matches, even when they are not hosting!, then for certain the greatest rugby nation of them all, New Zealand, can host the full thing.  Buy a camper-van, forget the 5 star hotels - live a little.  The camper-van crowd had a brilliant experience that will live with them a lot longer than someone who flies out and in on first class all the way.

hey, hang on a minute, it was your mate marty who started off about this. Go and say the same to him.

You are such an imperialist, Marty.

At times I giggle but really, at other times, I wish you'd lose the pomposity.

New Zealand had a right to a World Cup on better grounds than the tut-tut economics grounds you go on about. It is the very flag waver for the very sport. The best Union side that has ever existed. The very trademark for the 15 a side game.

Get off your blustering high horse. If Wales can host so many WC cup matches, even when they are not hosting!, then for certain the greatest rugby nation of them all, New Zealand, can host the full thing. Buy a camper-van, forget the 5 star hotels - live a little. The camper-van crowd had a brilliant experience that will live with them a lot longer than someone who flies out and in on first class all the way.



em...doesn't have the same Ring to it, Lordy. Something don't add up.

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I'd suggest that if people admit they want to stop the Lions preparing the best, that's plenty respect.

The Lions record against the 3N since 1989 is very good indeed.

Since 1989 (that time is just to give us enough test matches for the Lions to be a half decent stat)

Away wins vs. 3N sides %

NZ 54%
Lions 43%
ENG 29%
FRA 21%
AUS 20%
SA 16%
IRE 7%
SCO 4%
ARG 3%

WAL 0%

In the pro era the figures hardly change though.

NZ 57%
Lions 40%
ENG 28%
AUS 18%
FRA 15%
SA 16%
IRE 8%
SCO 6%
ARG 4%

WAL 0%

Nice work fa. You're like a medical researcher that wants to disprove the notion that his new drug kills more people than it saves. Only in percentage terms.... only in percentage terms!!!

I heard a report today that they're breeding Lions in South Africa for commercial hunting, mainly for the American market.

Guys just let this Lions thing go already ok. The sooner we focus on a global season with international expansion as the driver the better. The world cup along other revised international tournaments is the way forward. Just let it go.

Kingeldefield it ain't going to happen. The club sides run the games in England , as they do in France. It may be different in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, etc, but the club sides are not going to roll over for a global season - they are fighting against football and other sports, so will look after themselves first. They do not need the money of the RFU, but it helps. The owners of English and French club sides are generally rich business men who put themselves first, So they will allow the Lions to spread a bit of money round the southern hemisphere, but that is it.

And what if Matt Burke had a point? Perhaps it would be in Ozy's interest to move to a summer game with RSA following suit to play more European games?

I don't see why the entire focus is on the north to roll over when realistically we're the dog.

LordDowlais wrote:

ebop wrote:You've got lovely green eyes

Blink again one more time please

Isn't that what Bakkies Botha said to Mike Phillips on the 2009 Lions tour ?

Did he?

I bet Bakkies made it sound a lot more dangerous

The unions that really want a global season are the ones that need the money form the Lions tour.

The 2005 tour generated NZ$135 million for NZ economy,

I think the ARU got something like $35 million from the 2013 tour.

Really can't see them wanting the Lions to go.


Personally i would like to see the Lions try and play at least one of Samoa, Tonga and Fiji as a warm up game.