2017 & 2018 Inernational Fixtures

Afternoon all!

The autumn international rugby fest has been great so far! As an England fan I'm pretty happy with the progress under EJ and I'm excited about the potential we have with a a bit more time and some players back from injury; Kruis, Itoje, Haskell & Tuilagi in particular. I know people have mixed feeling re Tuilagi, however IF he can get himself fit and on form he'll definitely add something different to the squad!

Probably getting a bit ahead of myself, but I believe England will beat Argentina & Oz and keep the 2nd place in the ranking behind NZ, which to me would be justified and well deserved. This leave me salivating at the thought of when we will next play NZ. I heard that this is the 2018 AI's but haven't been able to find anything online? Surely the Summer tours & AI's for 2017 and 2018 are already agreed?

Any ideas anyone?

I'm secretly hoping it's not until 2018 - giving plenty of time to build up to this occasion. Reminds me of when I was younger and games against the SH teams, especially the AB's were really special due to the infrequency!

I was at the 1993, 2002 & 2012 wins vs the AB's and dream of being at the next one!

England are going to SA in 2018 and  New Zealand in 2020

NZ in summer 2019 - a nice WC warm up series then

Any ideas what the AI's are?

I corrected a mistake on that previous post, it would be 2020 post world cup assuming we stick to the usual rotation of Tri Nations.

They will PROBABLY get New Zeland to visit next Autumn, but theres a lot of squabbling over money at the moment with the All Blacks looking to get the global agreement changed so the visiting team gets a cut of gate reciepts. With much bigger takes (and investment in stadia) in the North the current deal means theyd gain finacialy from a change, and they are trying to force this by threatening to not come at all.

Gooseberry wrote:
I corrected a mistake on that previous post, it would be 2020 post world cup assuming we stick to the usual rotation of Tri Nations.

They will PROBABLY get New Zeland to visit next Autumn, but theres a lot of squabbling over money at the moment with the All Blacks looking to get the global agreement changed so the visiting team gets a cut of gate reciepts. With much bigger takes (and investment in stadia) in the North the current deal means theyd gain finacialy from a change, and they are trying to force this by threatening to not come at all.

Seems fair anyway. It's a business. Two sides playing. Like a boxing match. Both boxers get paid - maybe not equally but both get a percentage of the gate.

But reciprocal - teams visiting them get a cut too.

Secret Fly - I disagree. Why should the RFU for example invest loads in Twickers so that NZ can benefit if they get say 50% of the gate?

One solution maybe to scrap the AI's one off matches and have the NH sides host the SH sides for 3 match test series - i.e. the opposite of the Summer Tours? That way both unions get equal opportunities to generate revenue. However I think that they should alternate the tours between unions so that say if Eng tour NZ in the summer, NZ don't tour England until the following autumn.

I like the excitement and momentum generated by touring, I also believe it would give the NH sides better development opportunities as I feel the SH sides have an advantage by playing each other several times in a season. I'm not sure the 'one off' nature of the AI's gives the same benefit. Look at Ireland for example, I'd argue they have learnt and will develop more from beating a slightly depleted NZ and then losing against a full strength side than they would if they had just beaten them and then played someone else two weeks later. To be a top side you need consistency and it's hard to judge that when you are playing different opposition all the time.

SecretFly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:
I corrected a mistake on that previous post, it would be 2020 post world cup assuming we stick to the usual rotation of Tri Nations.

They will PROBABLY get New Zeland to visit next Autumn, but theres a lot of squabbling over money at the moment with the All Blacks looking to get the global agreement changed so the visiting team gets a cut of gate reciepts. With much bigger takes (and investment in stadia) in the North the current deal means theyd gain finacialy from a change, and they are trying to force this by threatening to not come at all.

Seems fair anyway.  It's a business.  Two sides playing.  Like a boxing match.  Both boxers get paid - maybe not equally but both get a percentage of the gate.

But reciprocal - teams visiting them get a cut too.

That appears fair but is not. The problem is that the NH have spent large amounts of money on large stadia which generate large gate receipts. In order to maximise revenues they play all their games in these stadiums.

NZ only have one mid sized stadium - Eden Park. To make matters worse they then play many international matches in small stadiums around the country.

If we are to move to this system the NH should insist on all games being played in Auckland in an expanded stadium.

Gooseberry,

How do you know Eng are touring SA in 2018 & NZ in 2020? I can't find anything anywhere?

France is touring SA in 2017 I think. Not sure who does Australia during the Lions, probably Scotland and some PI.

Exiledinborders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:
I corrected a mistake on that previous post, it would be 2020 post world cup assuming we stick to the usual rotation of Tri Nations.

They will PROBABLY get New Zeland to visit next Autumn, but theres a lot of squabbling over money at the moment with the All Blacks looking to get the global agreement changed so the visiting team gets a cut of gate reciepts. With much bigger takes (and investment in stadia) in the North the current deal means theyd gain finacialy from a change, and they are trying to force this by threatening to not come at all.

Seems fair anyway.  It's a business.  Two sides playing.  Like a boxing match.  Both boxers get paid - maybe not equally but both get a percentage of the gate.

But reciprocal - teams visiting them get a cut too.

That appears fair but is not. The problem is that the NH have spent large amounts of money on large stadia which generate large gate receipts. In order to maximise revenues they play all their games in these stadiums.  

And like all venues that cost a packet to finance them, the idea and wish is to recoup the costs as quickly as possible, to pay off debts as quickly as possible, to get in as much business as possible, after loan payments are over, to keep the show on the road and make profits.  
So what happens?  You try to get the biggest acts that attract the biggest audiences.  No team walks onto the field and plays itself.  You have the show - two teams, two groups of supporters, two fan bases watching on TV and helping juice along the broadcasting profits.

It's too simplistic by far in this complex world of Massive broadcasting deals and big corporate presence at games and sponsorship deals etc, to say: "we get all the money because we paid for the stadium".  The Stadium relies on the show to pay back loans and make profits - there should be no slaves in that process.  Everyone should get a cut that helps that process along.

Scotland have Australia next year. They are meant to be set up years in advance but can't find an official source rapidly that details who gets who.

England will be going to New Zealand next year, disguised in a red shirt rather than a white one.

Without trying to be negative.. the tourists to NZ will find it very tricky to maintain current performance levels into 2018.

Physical challenge
Its the toughest tour in rugby and as we saw on the weekend, when NZ play with added vigour the butchers bill to the opposition will be high. 10 matches with your A players perhaps playing 6-7 matches (when usually they may play max 3).

Mental challenge
Their will be guys who don't tour and how will that impact their confidence levels? Take lock for instance. 4 spaces and probably 9-10 genuine contenders. Their will be 6 that are disappointed and 2 more who don't make the grade.
Playing for your country builds a natural order over time. Players accept if person x is above them in the pecking order... but all of a sudden when they aspire to the test jersey? As many players who are made on lions tours are broken on them through confidence, loss of form and selection choices etc.

NZ isn't AUS 2013 with weak teams, ok weather and a powder puff test pack. Even the dirt trackers will face huge challenges instead of getting comfort for their demotion with 50 point hammerings.

The last 2 tours to NZ have been miserable affairs. Is this going to be anything different?

Take Ireland or England at the moment. If they were to send squads down to NZ next year I think they would cope with the above far easier and probably (probably) have a higher chance of getting a decent result (anything bar a 3 zip drubbing)

SecretFly wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:
I corrected a mistake on that previous post, it would be 2020 post world cup assuming we stick to the usual rotation of Tri Nations.

They will PROBABLY get New Zeland to visit next Autumn, but theres a lot of squabbling over money at the moment with the All Blacks looking to get the global agreement changed so the visiting team gets a cut of gate reciepts. With much bigger takes (and investment in stadia) in the North the current deal means theyd gain finacialy from a change, and they are trying to force this by threatening to not come at all.

Seems fair anyway.  It's a business.  Two sides playing.  Like a boxing match.  Both boxers get paid - maybe not equally but both get a percentage of the gate.

But reciprocal - teams visiting them get a cut too.

That appears fair but is not. The problem is that the NH have spent large amounts of money on large stadia which generate large gate receipts. In order to maximise revenues they play all their games in these stadiums.  

And like all venues that cost a packet to finance them, the idea and wish is to recoup the costs as quickly as possible, to pay off debts as quickly as possible, to get in as much business as possible, after loan payments are over, to keep the show on the road and make profits.  
So what happens?  You try to get the biggest acts that attract the biggest audiences.  No team walks onto the field and plays itself.  You have the show - two teams, two groups of supporters, two fan bases watching on TV and helping juice along the broadcasting profits.

It's too simplistic by far in this complex world of Massive broadcasting deals and big corporate presence at games and sponsorship deals etc, to say: "we get all the money because we paid for the stadium".  The Stadium relies on the show to pay back loans and make profits - there should be no slaves in that process.  Everyone should get a cut that helps that process along.

New Zealand do get a cut. It is a reciprocal arrangement. They get all the gate receipts for England games in New Zealand. In addition they get all the gate receipts for the Lions tour for which there is no balancing arrangement. The Lions tour will produce receipts from a large number of touring fans.

New Zealand have it in their own hands to increase their income. Expand Eden Park and play all their games there. If they cannot then make it pay then perhaps England should help but not before.

If England played their home games at Kingsholm and Sandy Park and then pleaded poverty they would be a laughing stock.

If England want to spread the game at home they have these options (largest stadium in each city ignoring Wembley)

Twickenham Stadium 82,000 London
Old Trafford 75,731 Manchester
Etihad Stadium 55,097 Manchester
Anfield 54,074 Liverpool
St James' Park 52,404 Newcastle upon Tyne
Stadium of Light 49,000 Sunderland
Villa Park 42,573 Birmingham

For New Zealand only Eden Park is larger than two of these stadiums, these are the options which England have played games in the last 20 years are
Stadium Capacity City
Eden Park 50,000 Auckland
Westpac Stadium 36,500 Wellington
Forsyth Barr Stadium 30,500 Dunedin
FMG Stadium Waikato 30,500 Hamilton
There have been 22 games since 1997, 10 in New Zealand and 12 in England.
England's share of gate receipts is 37,650 per game in New Zealand.
New Zealand's share in England would be 81,477 per game.
Add Scotland (4) And Wales(1) to the mix and there are 13 stadium including multiples in London and Manchester that are bigger than Eden Park and 30 Stadia bigger than those that England have played in.

Exiledinborders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:
I corrected a mistake on that previous post, it would be 2020 post world cup assuming we stick to the usual rotation of Tri Nations.

They will PROBABLY get New Zeland to visit next Autumn, but theres a lot of squabbling over money at the moment with the All Blacks looking to get the global agreement changed so the visiting team gets a cut of gate reciepts. With much bigger takes (and investment in stadia) in the North the current deal means theyd gain finacialy from a change, and they are trying to force this by threatening to not come at all.

Seems fair anyway.  It's a business.  Two sides playing.  Like a boxing match.  Both boxers get paid - maybe not equally but both get a percentage of the gate.

But reciprocal - teams visiting them get a cut too.

That appears fair but is not. The problem is that the NH have spent large amounts of money on large stadia which generate large gate receipts. In order to maximise revenues they play all their games in these stadiums.  

And like all venues that cost a packet to finance them, the idea and wish is to recoup the costs as quickly as possible, to pay off debts as quickly as possible, to get in as much business as possible, after loan payments are over, to keep the show on the road and make profits.  
So what happens?  You try to get the biggest acts that attract the biggest audiences.  No team walks onto the field and plays itself.  You have the show - two teams, two groups of supporters, two fan bases watching on TV and helping juice along the broadcasting profits.

It's too simplistic by far in this complex world of Massive broadcasting deals and big corporate presence at games and sponsorship deals etc, to say: "we get all the money because we paid for the stadium".  The Stadium relies on the show to pay back loans and make profits - there should be no slaves in that process.  Everyone should get a cut that helps that process along.

New Zealand do get a cut. It is a reciprocal arrangement. They get all the gate receipts for England games in New Zealand. In addition they get all the gate receipts for the Lions tour for which there is no balancing arrangement. The Lions tour will produce receipts from a large number of touring fans.

New Zealand have it in their own hands to increase their income. Expand Eden Park and play all their games there. If they cannot then make it pay then perhaps England should help but not before.  

If England played their home games at Kingsholm and Sandy Park and then pleaded poverty they would be a laughing stock.

Whilst I do not completely agree with NZ's current argument, I can see that there should some sort of revenue sharing platform agreed.  However, I do not want to go down the route highlighted above.  The All Blacks are a team representing all parts of NZ.  Why should we have to close off national access to our team and build a white elephant in Auckland?  Believe me, if we built a stadium of 60,000 plus we would have no use for it outside of 6-7 times a year.  Therein lies NZ's current problem because this approach, while it brings fans closer to their team, is not maximising its earnings potential.  But the 'one stadium in Auckland' route could also kill off the game in many parts of the country - it's a tricky balance and a tricky argument allround.

Living in the north of England has shown me that while going to 'Twickers' every now and then is a great day out, there should be more opportunities for those not fortunate enough to be able to travel and attend a match in London where even a 'dry' day out can set you back £200 without blinking.  Spread the gospel