New Zealand told to build a bigger stadium by England boss Ian Ritchie!

First topic message reminder :

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/new-zealand-blacks-told-go-11972580

England boss Ian Ritchie, having already given warning the RFU will torpedo any radical plan to move the autumn internationals or the Six Nations, has fired another in the direction of the southern hemisphere.

The New Zealand Rugby Union has been advised to go and build a bigger stadium if it wants to generate more income as the row over introducing a global season intensifies.

England boss Ian Ritchie, having already given warning the RFU will torpedo any radical plan to move the autumn internationals or the Six Nations, has fired another in the direction of the southern hemisphere.

Unions kings New Zealand have allegedly demanded half of the matchday revenue generated when they come to Europe to face the likes of Wales and England in fixtures following the 2019 World Cup.

There aren’t any tours in place after that tournament and the back-to-back world champion All Blacks have demanded cash to play at the Principality Stadium, Twickenham and the like.

New Zealand, Australia and South Africa want to increase their income to help fund the professional game in those countries.

NZRU boss chief executive Steve Tew has indicated the back-to-back World Cup holders will hold the northern hemisphere to ransom and seek individual fixtures if the sport’s leaders cannot reach a deal on the thorny issue of introducing a global season.

“We need a different season structure than we have now and we’re not going to default to the current one. We’re going to force that issue,” he declared.

“People will have to come to the table and we’ll negotiate individual matches in 2020.”

Tew claimed, without a compromise, there wouldn’t be a window for the Lions to tour or a World Cup.

But the sport’s most powerful and richest union, England, isn’t prepared to dance to the Kiwi tune, according to its chief executive Ritchie.

“When we went down there (Australia) for the three Test matches in June, we got no money at all,” he pointed out.

“They get the gate money and TV money and that’s the same for Lions tours as well, so I’m not sure I get this argument.

“I didn’t ask for a revenue share from Australia. And ditto from the Lions, so I don’t see why there is a particularly strong case for arguing the other way.

“If we manage to sell out 82,000 at Twickenham because of our efforts and because we’ve invested in the stadium, that’s something we’ve rightly invested in.

“If you look at the amount of money the RFU has spent on Twickenham since it was conceived, well then of course we should get a return on that.

“Of course they would say they want more money but there is nothing to stop Australia or New Zealand building a stadium.”

And Ritchie suggested: “Go and build a stadium if you want to increase your revenue growth.

“We’ve all been through it – Wales, Ireland and Scotland too. You incur some debt in stadium build and then you reap the benefits of that. We keep what we make to put back into the game.”

Ritchie hinted England may stop paying countries to play them outside the autumn World Rugby Test window, as has been the case.

“If you throw everything up in the air you might say: ‘Why would you pay that?’” he said.

Wales have also paid 'start money' to opponents so they can stage an extra autumn Test with cash-strapped Australia and South Africa having benefited from the policy.

Ritchie again dismissed the notion of a unified global season, saying: “As I understand it the southern hemisphere don’t want to play in their summer and neither do we, so bringing those calendars together becomes very difficult.

“We still see rugby as a winter sport. The Six Nations and the autumn internationals are important bed-rocks, so we don’t anticipate change there.

“The Six Nations, as far as the date in the calendar is concerned, works well. We have a great TV deal and we have stadia that are filled for every game.

“Why would you want to change something that works really well? So I can’t see there being any significant move in that.

“And I think as well that the autumn internationals work terribly well for us as well. The focus of discussion is on the summer (June), although one year will be a Lions and another a World Cup. Discussions are ongoing.”

Rugby’s leading decision-makers, including top officials from the WRU, have been in Buenos Aires, Argentina for a series of key World Rugby committee meetings to discuss and formulate policy.

WRU chairman Gareth Davies said, in the wake of Wales’ summer tour of New Zealand, the Six Nations didn’t need to be moved “for the sake of it” because it works where it is now (February and March).

But he added: “if it were necessary to move it in order that it were a piece of the jigsaw that enabled northern and southern hemispheres to have a coherent global season, then it’s worth doing.”

Union chief executive Martyn Phillips had said: “I have an open mind and people ask me about changing to summer rugby, moving the Six Nations tournament and altering the format.

“My whole philosophy is you review everything all the time so I’d review the Six Nations every year.

“There are a lot of conversations about the global season and we’re looking to make things better and the logical season for players and supporters.

“People have been very open about their views and there won’t be a solution for everyone because of the two different hemispheres.”

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why would England stop playing autumn tests? Even without SANZAR they would continue and make money. If they were to make less they would have to cut their cloth accordingly surely? You seem to dislike the rfu are good at makinng money.

Because England doesnt play in the Rugby Championship.

Eh?

7.5 presuming when you are talking about Autumn tests, you are talking about the three tests in June!!! they will then become tests outside of tournaments ie World Cup. six nations and Rugby Championship.

No AIs mainly as thats where Not greys point lay on England/RFU makes the money. England doesn't rely on 'big' teams selling out stadia. If they did they would have to pay staff less for a start.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why would England stop playing autumn tests? Even without SANZAR they would continue and make money. If they were to make less they would have to cut their cloth accordingly surely? You seem to dislike the rfu are good at makinng money.

If England want to maintain the status quo and the other nations change the payment system, why would they want to play England. It's a negotiation, any thing is possible. NZ has said the current system isn't sustainable for it (i.e. it has no choice but to change. The RFU has stated it will not change. Other nations can chose to do either. We know that most other nations are financially challenged. One solution is no Autumn tours to England (and no reciprocal tours). England don't have to share any revenues, every one else gets additional cash. Just as the RFU can refuse to play anyone that wants a share of the revenue created, others can refuse to play anyone that doesn't share a portion.

My issue is with an amateur system being used in the professional era and with the position adopted by the RFU. I see them as thew band playing whilst the titanic is sinking. Sure the RFU is doing well, but the wider international game is struggling. Rather than trying to be part of the solution they're acting like a feudal lord. I'm happy for them to make a lot of money, I'd like it to be spent on grass roots rugby in the UK. There's plenty of things they could do on the club front to ease the pressure. Unfortunately for the rest of us they're happier dictating than colaborating.

So England wouldn't play NZ. Even if you lump in SA Aus and Argentina it wouldn't hve that much effect. Can I just point out it appears NZ are doing more dictating. Sharing profits, but not cost and risk is one possible solution. I think 1 they can implement straight away is pay their staff and players less as they currently seem to be paying more than they can afford. Longer term think what can change globally, which should be led by WR.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So England wouldn't play NZ. Even if you lump in SA Aus and Argentina it wouldn't hve that much effect. Can I just point out it appears NZ  are doing more dictating. Sharing profits, but not cost and risk is one possible solution. I think 1 they can implement straight away is pay their staff and players less as they currently seem to be paying more than they can afford. Longer term think what can change globally, which should be led by WR.

England only ever comes to New Zealand once every decade.

And only every 2 years if that here.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So England wouldn't play NZ. Even if you lump in SA Aus and Argentina it wouldn't hve that much effect. Can I just point out it appears NZ  are doing more dictating. Sharing profits, but not cost and risk is one possible solution. I think 1 they can implement straight away is pay their staff and players less as they currently seem to be paying more than they can afford. Longer term think what can change globally, which should be led by WR.

Assuming all matches against SANZAAR nations were lost, and replaced by the like of Fiji or the USA I'd say conservatively it'll cost the RFU 15 million per year (that's superconservative) based on the RFU's 2014 Figures. I actually think the cost would be at least several times this. To give you an idea, in the 2014 financial report. 3 out of 6 home matches were against SANZAAR nations. It's not just ticket sales, the cost of tickets, hospitality packages, but TV rights and sponsorship that's affected. These effects can be seen if you read past reports. According to their records the RFU gives in excess of 45 million to professional clubs. This money effectively undermines the international game overseas and wasn't a problem preprofessionalism.

Right on

As much as it's enjoyable beating england 9/10, not playing them would be no skin off my nose

Imagine if no one wanted to play them to stop feeding the beast

That'd be a shame

Here we go....


Anyway - things how they seem to me.

On one side you have a well established rugby organisation that just so happens to be good at actually running a business. On the other you have the greatest team in the sport but one that belongs to an organisation that is struggling to live within its means. Then there are a set or arguments about how much each depends upon the other, which, when it comes down to it based on how often England and NZ actually play each other, isn't actually very much.

There also seems to be an assumption that where NZ lead, the rest of world rugby will automatically follow, so we are told that when NZ go off in a huff we will be left with nobody prepared to come to play at Twickenham. Why would that be?

You do realise it's a currency and population thing right? And not a mismanagement thing.

lostinwales wrote:Here we go....


Anyway - things how they seem to me.

On one side you have a well established rugby organisation that just so happens to be good at actually running a business. On the other you have the greatest team in the sport but one that belongs to an organisation that is struggling to live within its means. Then there are a set or arguments about how much each depends upon the other, which, when it comes down to it based on how often England and NZ actually play each other, isn't actually very much.

There also seems to be an assumption that where NZ lead, the rest of world rugby will automatically follow, so we are told that when NZ go off in a huff we will be left with nobody prepared to come to play at Twickenham. Why would that be?

I'd say on one side you have a feudal society that happens to be very big, very rich and very powerful. On the other you have a very efficient business that punches well above it's weight, but has been "made an offer it can't refuse"

When did this all this change from NZ making all the demands to England being the big, bad guys?

Cyril wrote:When did this all this change from NZ making all the demands to England being the big, bad guys?

As soon as the Kiwis realised that England weren't going to agree to everything without comment !

Irish Londoner wrote:

Cyril wrote:When did this all this change from NZ making all the demands to England being the big, bad guys?

As soon as the Kiwis realised that England weren't going to agree to everything without comment !

Agree to 'anything'

ebop wrote:You do realise it's a currency and population thing right? And not a mismanagement thing.

Population etc is very important. Its not the only factor though. (Look at France....)

And I don't think its not like some kind of deal could not or should not be made, but it would have to be reciprocal and not purely based on the idea we have money and you don't.

lostinwales wrote:

ebop wrote:You do realise it's a currency and population thing right? And not a mismanagement thing.

Population etc is very important. Its not the only factor though. (Look at France....)

And I don't think its not like some kind of deal could not or should not be made, but it would have to be reciprocal and not purely based on the idea we have money and you don't.

Problem is as the proposals stand there's nothing reciprocal coming from NZ:
They want to move the calendar - or to be more accurate they want everyone else to move to suit them.
They want money for deigning to play in the NH or they'll not come.

Simple answer is that in the short/medium term the NH sides and in particular England can face this down whilst NZ rugby goes bust.

If England were to lose 15 mil a year I guess they'd have to cut their spending, seems the easiest thing to do.

Curious that the Nzru model to control players is seen as sacrosanct and as the costs of professional sport only go in one direction, the realisation that it is shortly going to be unaffordable, would be anything but a surprise.

The Nzru are engaged in a cynical exercise under the guise of player welfare, (their ABs play the minimal S18 matches) . They want the global model to change in order to fund their (successful) vertically integrated domestic model.

The natural conclusion is for the Union to set free and sell their franchises and lose the costs. The stumbling block to that however is the fact of SANZAR running a closed shop in the S18 where the teams are set in stone as the current elite and with zero opportunity for anyone else to achieve the top tier - thus creating a cartel.

Interesting times.

I say let NZ go bust.

At least that would open up the door to let a more viable Nation claim the title of Best Side in the World without having to go through the effort - which would protect players from being over-worked in this age of too many concussions and injury.
New Zealand are technically too small a Nation anyway to hold the title on a professional marketing level.  It doesn't make sense that a Nation with such a small population should have a title that could be used much more effectively to market Rugby Union worldwide by a larger nation with the correct infrastructure and best business models and practices.

Besides, trying to hitch in that Nation is bloody dreadful.  They never give you a life if you ransack one of their little villages.  They hold grudges that way, which is silly.

lostinwales wrote:

ebop wrote:You do realise it's a currency and population thing right? And not a mismanagement thing.

Population etc is very important. Its not the only factor though. (Look at France....)

Exactly

Look at France

Look at England

Two of the biggest poachers of talent that is the reason unions struggle to keep their players

Disgraceful

Poor wum ebop!

Looking forward to seeing Hughes play

What is it

8 foreigners in the team now?

Oh, the shame

Faux indignation won't get you far in professional sport ebop.

Employment restrictions rarely happen in any other walk of life, so why should they in sport ?

Recwatcher16 wrote:Faux indignation won't get you far in professional sport ebop.

Employment restrictions rarely happen in any other walk of life, so why should they in sport ?

Ah yes

Restrictions

Do you think it's ok for touring teams to be restricted in their opportunity to demand more money?

Demand and supply and all that

It is a professional age we live in after all

ebop wrote:You do realise it's a currency and population thing right? And not a mismanagement thing.

No, there are elements of both. The RFU is wealthier than the FFR and (I assume) SARU, who have a similar population to work with, because they own their own stadium. That takes away a chunk of cost and adds a very significant revenue stream. The RFU also probably spends less propping up its club sides than most unions apart from the FFR.

There's a bit of luck in both of those - the decision to buy the cabbage patch was taken over a hundred years ago, and the decision not to take control of the clubs was essentially a blunder by the 57 old farts of the RFU Council, but there's also been good management in the way Twickenham has been developed and in the success they made of every aspect RWC 2015 bar their own team's performance.

The other important point that everyone appears to be missing is that both this is all part of a commercial negotiation between the all the top tier nations. The RFU and the NZRU have taken negotiating positions that at the moment aren't compatible and that stand out because they are at the extreme ends of the positioning. They can afford to do this because NZ has the biggest brand while the RFU has the biggest revenue stream.

The most likely answer is that they'll find some midpoint that works for both sides; but it's also possible that the RFU won't accede to NZ's demands. Given that they can fill Twickenham for Aus, SA and Argentina and make enough money to make it worthwhile playing Fiji, they won't be short of opposition unless the rest of SANZAR joins NZ. What they probably can't afford is to set a precedent with NZ that encourages SA and Aus to ask for the same deal.

What annoys me is assumption that there's something moral in this. That it's somehow wrong for the RFU to want to hang on to its hard earned revenue and not roll over for the NZRU, and also that it's wrong for the NZRU to ask.

Demand and supply and all that

It is a professional age we live in after all

Certainly is, and the RFU rejected the NZRFU demand as what would have been supplied was too expensive.

It is a commercial age we live in after all

Indeed

And what is the opportunity cost?

Of getting a surprise next time they play, say in a RWC

No-one's demands are being restricted.
Just don't be hoodwinked on the underlying reasons.

The history of how professionalism arrived in Rugby which was demanded by some and resisted by others is just one of the ironies of the current structure of the professional and amateur game.

If all Test rugby stopped tomorrow, it wouldn't be the end of the world, would it?

Great

So you accept then

That if there is a demand, then it can be supplied at a given cost

Didn't England resist professionalism and also the RWC? Such a progressive union. Maybe they'll be caught on the hop again.

My point was that the RFU did resist professionalism yand now look at who is struggling with it.....

Yeah I got your point

I spelled it out myself

Always one step behind (RFU)

You asked a question and I answered it.

It was rhetorical

Rhetorically then it must be the RFU that are struggling - time will tell.

The more emphasis there is on funding the sport through Test matches, the less chance there is for the sport to grow because teams will not want to play low return games.

The real driver for the sport has to be club game. That's where there is more room for growth. SANZAR should make sure that level does more than just serve the national teams.

I don't think anyone has really got the balance right in our sport, regardless of the money currently circulating. Rather than fighting over shares of Test match revenue, I'd rather there was a more comprehensive look at the club/province/region structure to work out how we can increase audiences, participation and revenue at this level across the globe.

Rugby Fan wrote:The more emphasis there is on funding the sport through Test matches, the less chance there is for the sport to grow because teams will not want to play low return games.

The real driver for the sport has to be club game. That's where there is more room for growth. SANZAR should make sure that level does more than just serve the national teams.

I don't think anyone has really got the balance right in our sport, regardless of the money currently circulating. Rather than fighting over shares of Test match revenue, I'd rather there was a more comprehensive look at the club/province/region structure to work out how we can increase audiences, participation and revenue at this level across the globe.

Reduce player wage-packets?  That'd help.

Right now professional club rugby (in Europe) is attempting to put the cart before the horse to aggressively push its underlying agenda forward (major control of any emerging global club game).  
They are doing the classic speculating to accumulate.  BT pushed far higher amounts into the club game in England than was ever the natural asking price at the time for that sport but it's a gamble - and we're at the stage now where the roulette wheel is turning.  
Right now player wages are going up higher than the game is growing as a spectator sport - but that's the gamble - pay the wages, suck in the special players from the SH and other rival Leagues, create an audience for English rugby that is global more than local and only then see the payback flow in on profits.  A gamble.  France has its own version up and running too.
But the gamble isn't 'global rugby friendly' like you are suggesting.  It's a power grabber.  It's not designed to improve rugby participation and all those nice cosy ideas - it's a cold and direct rush for power, control and personal business profits for PRL members.  "If we have all the best players and the most financially powerful league, we call the shots on the governance and administration on any 'global' game into the future."  
Let's not talk of people having lovely philanthropic dreams about Growth - Greed is the more appropriate word.

SecretFly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:The more emphasis there is on funding the sport through Test matches, the less chance there is for the sport to grow because teams will not want to play low return games.

The real driver for the sport has to be club game. That's where there is more room for growth. SANZAR should make sure that level does more than just serve the national teams.

I don't think anyone has really got the balance right in our sport, regardless of the money currently circulating. Rather than fighting over shares of Test match revenue, I'd rather there was a more comprehensive look at the club/province/region structure to work out how we can increase audiences, participation and revenue at this level across the globe.

Reduce player wage-packets?  That'd help.

Right now professional club rugby (in Europe) is attempting to put the cart before the horse to aggressively push its underlying agenda forward (major control of any emerging global club game).  
They are doing the classic speculating to accumulate.  BT pushed far higher amounts into the club game in England than was ever the natural asking price at the time for that sport but it's a gamble - and we're at the stage now where the roulette wheel is turning.  
Right now player wages are going up higher than the game is growing as a spectator sport - but that's the gamble - pay the wages, suck in the special players from the SH and other rival Leagues, create an audience for English rugby that is global more than local and only then see the payback flow in on profits.  A gamble.  France has its own version up and running too.
But the gamble isn't 'global rugby friendly' like you are suggesting.  It's a power grabber.  It's not designed to improve rugby participation and all those nice cosy ideas - it's a cold and direct rush for power, control and personal business profits for PRL members.  "If we have all the best players and the most financially powerful league, we call the shots on the governance and administration on any 'global' game into the future."  
Let's not talk of people having lovely philanthropic dreams about Growth - Greed is the more appropriate word.

The problem is the alternative - i.e. everyone paying the rugby players less. It is appealing as far as the long term future of the game goes but its not so appealing to the guys actually risking life, limb and brain cells actually providing the entertainment

If we have all the best players and the most financially powerful league, we call the shots on the governance and administration on any 'global' game into the future."

Don't think they are that far seeing - and whilst a couple of the EPL owners look like typical pantomime villains, most of them are just trying to make ends meet in a very competitive environment, just like the IRFU head honchos.

TrailApe wrote:

If we have all the best players and the most financially powerful league, we call the shots on the governance and administration on any 'global' game into the future."  

Don't think they are that far seeing - and whilst  a couple of the EPL owners look like typical pantomime villains, most of them are just trying to make ends meet in a very competitive environment, just like the IRFU head honchos.

I think they are and I think there are some quotes from a few years back that would back my opinion up.

The PRL is the PRL - we've already seen how the 'minority' can be hushed by the controllers of the group, who allegedly have the correct 'vision'.

So it's too easy to say the PRL are a loose grouping of 12 autonomous clubs with all their own individual attitudes to how to proceed domestically and further afield.  The PRL has quite a distinct and strong voice, and closes down on those tiny protesting voices who claim to be still 'autonomous' with their own private views.

When I speak of PRL - I speak of the controllers - the execs - those are the people who provide the overview and act on it.

I have no issue with sharing the gate (and hospitality) but the home nations would have a reciprocal arrangement and if the options are 1) 50,000 in Eden Park, 35,000 at Westpac against New Zealand
2) 84,000 in Stadium Australia and 52,000 at Suncorp (or 56,000 Etihad Melbourne) against Australia
3) 51,000 in Loftus Versfeld and 52,000 in Newlands (or 52,000 in Kings Park) against South Africa
Where are they going to go, and you can be sure that if they choose New Zealand it will be to Eden Park only

One question re sharing gate money - would it lead to price increases for the SH teams - e.g. how does an "average" ticket for the AIs at Twickenham compare to one for Eden Park or Stadium Australia ? I'm assuming that the NH clubs will want at least as much when they visit as the SH do when going north ?

SF - I've a lot of time for your posts (I'm sure your right chuffed ) but I think this a bit 'out there'. Not many people in English club rugby - least of all the owners - are making big bucks so I don't think greed really is the primary factor. Oh I'll agree that they will try anything to ensure they stay near the top of the pile, but is that not true of all administrations?

I've got a spare tin foil hat if you need it - I use them all the time.

tazfalklands wrote:I have no issue with sharing the gate (and hospitality) but the home nations would have a reciprocal arrangement and if the options are 1) 50,000 in Eden Park, 35,000 at Westpac against New Zealand  
2) 84,000 in Stadium Australia and 52,000 at Suncorp (or 56,000 Etihad Melbourne) against Australia
3) 51,000 in Loftus Versfeld  and 52,000 in Newlands (or 52,000 in Kings Park) against South Africa
Where are they going to go, and you can be sure that if they choose New Zealand it will be to Eden Park only

New Zealand are asking for share of the profits of the All Blacks games, not the gate sales.

Rugby Fan wrote:The more emphasis there is on funding the sport through Test matches, the less chance there is for the sport to grow because teams will not want to play low return games.

The real driver for the sport has to be club game. That's where there is more room for growth. SANZAR should make sure that level does more than just serve the national teams.

I don't think anyone has really got the balance right in our sport, regardless of the money currently circulating. Rather than fighting over shares of Test match revenue, I'd rather there was a more comprehensive look at the club/province/region structure to work out how we can increase audiences, participation and revenue at this level across the globe.

You 're coming at it from an interesting tangent RF.

If SANZAR are to extend Super Rugby even further (Geograpchicaly) it does raise the role of franchises being more the lifeline of the sport than Internationals.

Now that Super Rugby is now into Asia and South America, it starts to get serious, and especially if it moves into Canada and the USA.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

tazfalklands wrote:I have no issue with sharing the gate (and hospitality) but the home nations would have a reciprocal arrangement and if the options are 1) 50,000 in Eden Park, 35,000 at Westpac against New Zealand  
2) 84,000 in Stadium Australia and 52,000 at Suncorp (or 56,000 Etihad Melbourne) against Australia
3) 51,000 in Loftus Versfeld  and 52,000 in Newlands (or 52,000 in Kings Park) against South Africa
Where are they going to go, and you can be sure that if they choose New Zealand it will be to Eden Park only

New Zealand are asking for  share of the profits of the All Blacks games, not the gate sales.

Profit from what? If it's a reciprocal profit share from ticket sales, then that's one thing even though it's asking the RFU to buy a pound for a fiver. If it's not reciprocated or it's total profit on the game, then that's a very different issue.

But if we're going to discuss profit shares, then shouldn't there be a discussion about a whole global framework for this? Shouldn't away tours be part of this? How about the Lions?

Why build and maintain great stadia at all? They should agree to NZs demand then sell out Sandy Park and send them a grand down under.

SecretFly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:The more emphasis there is on funding the sport through Test matches, the less chance there is for the sport to grow because teams will not want to play low return games.

The real driver for the sport has to be club game. That's where there is more room for growth. SANZAR should make sure that level does more than just serve the national teams.

I don't think anyone has really got the balance right in our sport, regardless of the money currently circulating. Rather than fighting over shares of Test match revenue, I'd rather there was a more comprehensive look at the club/province/region structure to work out how we can increase audiences, participation and revenue at this level across the globe.

Reduce player wage-packets?  That'd help.

Right now professional club rugby (in Europe) is attempting to put the cart before the horse to aggressively push its underlying agenda forward (major control of any emerging global club game).  
They are doing the classic speculating to accumulate.  BT pushed far higher amounts into the club game in England than was ever the natural asking price at the time for that sport but it's a gamble - and we're at the stage now where the roulette wheel is turning.  
Right now player wages are going up higher than the game is growing as a spectator sport - but that's the gamble - pay the wages, suck in the special players from the SH and other rival Leagues, create an audience for English rugby that is global more than local and only then see the payback flow in on profits.  A gamble.  France has its own version up and running too.
But the gamble isn't 'global rugby friendly' like you are suggesting.  It's a power grabber.  It's not designed to improve rugby participation and all those nice cosy ideas - it's a cold and direct rush for power, control and personal business profits for PRL members.  "If we have all the best players and the most financially powerful league, we call the shots on the governance and administration on any 'global' game into the future."  
Let's not talk of people having lovely philanthropic dreams about Growth - Greed is the more appropriate word.

Maybe we should have a thread for the 'best' or our 'favorite' posts.

Good one SecretFly, very realpolitik.

SecretFly wrote:...But the gamble isn't 'global rugby friendly' like you are suggesting....

I suggested nothing of the sort, Secret. I think that's called "projecting".