Club vs Country? NH vs SH? Seismic change?

Big meeting in the next 24 hours

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48348250

Personally, i hope this initiative never gets off the ground.

Grassroots support and participation are the genesis of quality rugby players. Australia are lacking so should the rest of the world bail them out financially so they can recruit from Aus League? Hell no IMO.

I just can't get my head around why they are doing this when rugby union is going through such a boom in tier 2 and tier 3 countries at the minute. Just look at Brazil getting 30k and Chile getting 16k when they hosted the Maori ABs recently. A new professional league in NA and soon south America. Spain regularly getting 16k for their home matches in the 6Nb and getting 24k to a club final. New professional teams in the PIs and Asia with Global Rapid rugby. Huge crowds in Japan for club and international games etc etc.

If there is even a hint this could damage the progress these nations are making then this needs to be stopped immediately.

quinsforever wrote:Big meeting in the next 24 hours

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48348250

Personally, i hope this initiative never gets off the ground.

Grassroots support and participation are the genesis of quality rugby players. Australia are lacking so should the rest of the world bail them out financially so they can recruit from Aus League? Hell no IMO.

'Grassroots support and participation are the genesis of quality rugby players'

Oh please. This is why Jones coaches England, Gats and Schmidt the other two huh?

Some grassroots. Do NH coaches 'participate'? Or do they just flag it and leave it to those that know what theyre doing?

Taylorman wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Big meeting in the next 24 hours

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48348250

Personally, i hope this initiative never gets off the ground.

Grassroots support and participation are the genesis of quality rugby players. Australia are lacking so should the rest of the world bail them out financially so they can recruit from Aus League? Hell no IMO.

'Grassroots support and participation are the genesis of quality rugby players'

Oh please. This is why Jones coaches England, Gats and Schmidt the other two huh?

Some grassroots. Do NH coaches 'participate'? Or do they just flag it and leave it to those that know what theyre doing?

NH-born coaches do participate. Even more will next year.

Well it will be all change after the World Cup re SH coaches in NH

We have an Irishman in charge of Italy
A Scotsman in charge of Scotland
An English man in charge of Ireland
If the rumours are to be believed an Irishman in charge of England (and anyway Eddie is half NH )
A Frenchman in charge of France (we just don't know which one)

Only Wales bucking the trend

Taylorman wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Big meeting in the next 24 hours

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48348250

Personally, i hope this initiative never gets off the ground.

Grassroots support and participation are the genesis of quality rugby players. Australia are lacking so should the rest of the world bail them out financially so they can recruit from Aus League? Hell no IMO.

'Grassroots support and participation are the genesis of quality rugby players'

Oh please. This is why Jones coaches England, Gats and Schmidt the other two huh?

Some grassroots. Do NH coaches 'participate'? Or do they just flag it and leave it to those that know what theyre doing?

Support = supporters; participation = players. Coaching at the pro level is not 'grassroots', so not sure why you're bringing pro coaches into this.

Oh, coaches dont participate at grassroots level then? Surely grassroots coaching and support is meant to, like it does players, bring professionals through? But alas. He we are. Neither players nor coaches from grassroots are able to supply the demands of pro rugby, to the extent that truckloads of both must be brought in.

The success of your grassroots rugby is surely measured by the success of your pro’s, and frankly, most NH pro clubs look like combined NH SH baabaas sides, for that reason.

Taylorman wrote:

The success of your grassroots rugby is surely measured by the success of your pro’s, and frankly, most NH pro clubs look like combined NH SH baabaas sides, for that reason.

No they don't.

Saracens and Chiefs Poth?
Seven from the SH including oz, Tonga, Argie, SA, and five from Wales, France, Scotland and USA. Nine countries make up the squad.

Exeter 17 players not from England, nine from the SH.
Glasgow warriors 14 players from across the globe.
Toulon-13 foreign players.

I could find many more.
Name a single SH franchise that has anywhere near those baabaas line ups.

You might tout Leinster with ‘only’ three but the truth is you have competitions featuring baa bass squads galore.

The NZ teams cant afford to buy pro players, thats why they poach the underage ones. James Haskell got paid less that a McDonalds worker for playing for the Highlanders. It cost him more than he was paid. Thats why you only get the odd Leinster academy reject like Oliver Jaeger playing for the Crusaders.

Collapse2005 wrote:The NZ teams cant afford to buy pro players, thats why they poach the underage ones. James Haskell got paid less that a McDonalds worker for playing for the Highlanders. It cost him more than he was paid. Thats why you only get the odd Leinster academy reject like Oliver Jaeger playing for the Crusaders.

Might be correct, though a pity your funnies are limited to money concepts and quips, cos well...its all you have in this game.

Though whoever Jaeger is, couldnt be with a better squad. Many (many) have rued letting so called rejects go to the saders. If he's an ounce of talent they'll get it out of him.

Haskell was a rare breed. Toiled away for six months on the bench before getting a start. If players were truly about improving their game they'd be here to learn with the best, but nope, too hard basket, easier to get the same salary playing tier two club comps.

The player movement is far too one sided so somethings gonna give one day. Rugby isnt Football and the money isnt that lucrative. Our young players are now told a rugby career is global. I'm guessing yours arent.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:The NZ teams cant afford to buy pro players, thats why they poach the underage ones. James Haskell got paid less that a McDonalds worker for playing for the Highlanders. It cost him more than he was paid. Thats why you only get the odd Leinster academy reject like Oliver Jaeger playing for the Crusaders.

Might be correct, though a pity your funnies are limited to money concepts and quips, cos well...its all you have in this game.

Though whoever Jaeger is, couldnt be with a better squad. Many (many) have rued letting so called rejects go to the saders. If he's an ounce of talent they'll get it out of him.

Haskell was a rare breed. Toiled away for six months on the bench before getting a start. If players were truly about improving their game they'd be here to learn with the best, but nope, too hard basket, easier to get the same salary playing tier two club comps.

The player movement is far too one sided so somethings gonna give one day. Rugby isnt Football and the money isnt that lucrative. Our young players are now told a rugby career is global. I'm guessing yours arent.

We (my club) send plenty of players down to NZ for a bit of experience and a run around. They just come back here when it’s time to earn some money.

Yes, tmore money funnies, no rugby. Typifies NH rugby which is about salaries and crowd numbers. And why your 6N was a dismal affair again this year. Thousands applauding mediocrity.

Taylorman wrote:Saracens and Chiefs Poth?
Seven from the SH including oz, Tonga, Argie, SA, and five from Wales, France, Scotland and USA. Nine countries make up the squad.

Exeter 17 players not from England, nine from the SH.
Glasgow warriors 14 players from across the globe.
Toulon-13 foreign players.

I could find many more.
Name a single SH franchise that has anywhere near those baabaas line ups.

You might tout Leinster with ‘only’ three but the truth is you have competitions featuring baa bass squads galore.

T-man - we've been around the houses a dozen times on this one.   There's no point in comparing the NH clubs with SH franchises - the structures, comps and systems are completely different, never mind the finances.  European/Japanese rugby deliberately has a multi-country player mix, SANZAAR deliberately doesn't (in theory).
Here's the broad breakdown of numbers that you're referring to:

England - 802 domestic-born, 230 SH-born, 162 NH-born (24 teams inc academies) Avg: 33 Eng, 9 SH, 7 NH per squad
France - 781, 347, 127 (30 teams exc academies) avg 26, 12, 4 per squad
Japan - 350, 197, 12 (16 teams exc academies) - avg 22, 12, 1 per squad
Scotland - 66, 26, 16 (2 teams inc academy) - avg 33, 13, 8 per squad
Italy - 76, 20, 6 (2 teams inc academy) - avg - 38, 10, 3 per squad
Wales - 193, 31, 27 (4 teams inc academy) - 48, 8, 7 per squad
Ireland - 200, 30, 21 (4 teams inc academy) - 50, 7, 5 per squad
NZ - 165 domestic-born, 21 SH born, 4 NH born. (5 Super teams) - Avg - 33, 4, 1 per squad

Exactly, Baabaas.

A minimum of 7 and 8 and up to 12 and 13 average SH players for every northern squad on average makes them a baabaas set up. Theyre even coming here before going to other, closer NH countries.

We have 4 in total from the NH...insignificant in comparison.

If that aint baabaas in comparison I dont know what is. The SH makes up more than a quarter of all NH club rugby? And within that you'll certainly find higher quality and salary in that quarter across the board.

Black and white hoops anyone?

Taylorman wrote:Exactly, Baabaas.

A minimum of 7 and 8 and up to 12 and 13 average SH players for every northern squad on average makes them a baabaas set up. Theyre even coming here before going to other, closer NH countries.

We have 4 in total from the NH...insignificant in comparison.

If that aint baabaas in comparison I dont know what is. The SH makes up more than a quarter of all NH club rugby? And within that you'll certainly find higher quality and salary in that quarter across the board.

Black and white hoops anyone?

It’s a multi-country player environment that embraces and involves all nationalities.  There’s nothing particularly new in this and is the inevitable consequence of professionalism, migration and an increasingly mobile player workforce. The above figures includes players born to parents of other nationalities, who moved country as young children, as teenagers and senior already established players. Baa baa teams selections are one-offs and never play again. The exact opposite of the various club teams.

naaah, its just avoiding having to admit it. Professionalism has changed the northern team make ups forever. In the amateur days clubs and countries had to pluck locally to win, as we all did, and consistently fell behind the SH as a result. Professionalism has simply shifted higher quality players from the SH to boost the results of northern sides.

That makes northern sides baabaas, professionals that learnt their trade from all over the globe, bought in to win.

Lumping professionals from all over the globe is at the heart of the Baabaas selection process, one offs or not.

Now everyones doing it. theyre not playing NH rugby, theyre playing a new blend of various styles that culminate into ones never seen before.

They should call it the Pro 14 Baabaas trophy.

Pointless trying to equate the amount of sh players plying their trade in the north and vice versa as a way of demonstrating overall quality of coaching.especially when you've already admitted it's because you haven't the money to attract players to the south.

Taylorman wrote:naaah, its just avoiding having to admit it. Professionalism has changed the northern team make ups forever. In the amateur days clubs and countries had to pluck locally to win, as we all did, and consistently fell behind the SH as a result. Professionalism has simply shifted higher quality players from the SH to boost the results of northern sides.

That makes northern sides baabaas, professionals that learnt their trade from all over the globe, bought in to win.

Lumping professionals from all over the globe is at the heart of the Baabaas selection process, one offs or not.

Now everyones doing it. theyre not playing NH rugby, theyre playing a new blend of various styles that culminate into ones never seen before.

They should call it the Pro 14 Baabaas trophy.

Would it be churlish of me to point out that the SH teams were the drivers of professionalism? Now they're whinging because the NH teams are better at it than they are? I have no problem with more money going to the tier two nations and to spread the game however I'm not happy with NH fans and TV viewers paying to keep Kiwis and Aussies in the style to which they'd like to become accustomed.

Taylorman wrote:naaah, its just avoiding having to admit it. Professionalism has changed the northern team make ups forever. In the amateur days clubs and countries had to pluck locally to win, as we all did, and consistently fell behind the SH as a result. Professionalism has simply shifted higher quality players from the SH to boost the results of northern sides.

That makes northern sides baabaas, professionals that learnt their trade from all over the globe, bought in to win.

Lumping professionals from all over the globe is at the heart of the Baabaas selection process, one offs or not.

Now everyones doing it. theyre not playing NH rugby, theyre playing a new blend of various styles that culminate into ones never seen before.

They should call it the Pro 14 Baabaas trophy.

There isn’t a uniform NH rugby style, no more than there is an SH one. And of course, as more and more players are added into the multi-country player mix within the club game, the more things change. Call it Baas-Baas if you want - it’s a befitting accolade to the diverse and rich talent on display each week. You tend to see it through the polarizing filter of hemispheres - but it’s moved well beyond that at this point. It is unions and privately owned clubs that form the balance in the game - in my view.

Yes you might say we are beating the same drum but unlike the SH, this is a consistent and sustained effort to improve the game by pouring hundreds of millions into countries all over the globe to improve the standard. No SH country is doing anything like that. We are what we are, the NH isnt. So yea, baabaas is apt.

And perhaps the NH game gets so diluted 2003 becomes the rugby version of 1966, where your club rugby isnt reflected in the test arena. Where club sides are stronger than 6N sides. Certainly looked it at 6N time, not a good advert for the sport.

Taylorman wrote:Yes you might say we are beating the same drum but unlike the SH, this is a consistent and sustained effort to improve the game by pouring hundreds of millions into countries all over the globe to improve the standard. No SH country is doing anything like that. We are what we are, the NH isnt. So yea, baabaas is apt.

And perhaps the NH game gets so diluted 2003 becomes the rugby version of 1966, where your club rugby isnt reflected in the test arena. Where club sides are stronger than 6N sides. Certainly looked it at 6N time, not a good advert for the sport.

Indeed - no SH country is doing anything like that. It employs its own and does very little for other countries. The NH clubs are in a much better position to do that.

Only because no SH country except Australia has a economy that is able to attract foreign players. The exception being islanders coming in their droves to NZ because they have a worse ecomonies than NZ and no pro sides. Australia however, doesnt have a strong enough rugby union scene to attract foreign players from the NH other than the odd stray and they also have deep rooted financial issues.

NH players dont want to go to NZ because you would get paid more in McDonalds in Europe. They dont want to go to Argentina because Argentina only has one professional side and any foreigners they take on are generally from Uruguay (1 player right now). The rate of inflation in Argentina is 55% which means that anything you earn very quickly devalues so even if they did have a steady pro league you arent going to earn much there. Inflation in the Euro zone is 1.4%. 55% is actually not that bad for Argentina as the inflation rate averages about 200% over the last 50 years.

Similar story in SA. They have plenty of pro sides but you arent going to earn much albeit again you still get the odd stray like Jonny Sexton's brother playing for a SA side.

If the economy in Ireland completely tanked below the GDP of SANZAR countries their would be no SANZAR players in Ireland. Its pretty simple economics.

Exactly. Rugby strength in the NH is measured in $, where actual player and coaching quality, has and always will be, rubbish in terms of the $ available. Players also dont come here because the challenge is too tough. Why play in a tougher league for less $$? Why waste time measuring yourself against the best, when second level comps are easier. Thanks for confirming my point

Taylorman wrote:Exactly. Rugby strength in the NH is measured in $, where actual player and coaching quality, has and always will be, rubbish in terms of the $ available. Players also dont come here because the challenge is too tough. Why play in a tougher league for less $$? Why waste time measuring yourself against the best, when second level comps are easier. Thanks for confirming my point

Its a pro sport. NZ are probably the biggest money grabbers in rugby, they just don't have the same financial clout as other places.

The only reason players dont go to NZ other than a constant slew of islanders is because you wont get paid for it. Its the same the world over.

You seem to have convinced yourself that NZ are the great humanitarians of world rugby, they are not!

Hard to say which players will sick or swim in different environments. Players like Symond did well down south and has proved to be a bit average here.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Exactly. Rugby strength in the NH is measured in $, where actual player and coaching quality, has and always will be, rubbish in terms of the $ available. Players also dont come here because the challenge is too tough. Why play in a tougher league for less $$? Why waste time measuring yourself against the best, when second level comps are easier. Thanks for confirming my point

Its a pro sport. NZ are probably the biggest money grabbers in rugby, they just don't have the same financial clout as other places.

The only reason players dont go to NZ other than a constant slew of islanders is because you wont get paid for it. Its the same the world over.

You seem to have convinced yourself that NZ are the great humanitarians of world rugby, they are not!

Yeah, we are. We supply more club and test players and coaches born here than any other country by a mile.

Check 2015. How many attended the entire tournament as players or coaches were born, or learned their rugby in NZ. Bet you wont find any country anywhere near NZ either as players or coaches.

All we are missing here is population numbers. We have 4 million. The home unions combined have around twenty times that, and still cant put out better sides despite having far more money, and player numbers. Thats poor in any language. Even the Lions still havent won a series since 1971. This after having a massive player base, multiple club comps and pro teams to select from. We have five teams. Thats it.

You dont supply them those players choose to leave. Dangle a fiver in front of a Kiwi and he will be in London in a flash. Its basic economics.

Ha ha, losing this one badly. Answer: $$$
You find the money, we’ll supply the rugby.

Taylorman wrote:Ha ha, losing this one badly. Answer: $$$
You find the money, we’ll supply the rugby.

If players and coaches from New Zealand stopped coming to the north, I doubt anyone would notice. If club owners in the north stopped putting money in, rugby would collapse as a professional sport.

Well apparently clubs are already struggling financially, and yeah, people would notice, because the test sides would start sliding back down again. Theres a reason theyre in such high demand. Wales for example, seem to insist on NZ coaches...Im guessing, for very sound reasons.

Both the top clubs in the NH are coached by Irish coaches as is the top side in NZ/SH. Kind of puts a dent in your typically paper thin "there are no good coaches in the NH" theory.

Collapse2005 wrote:Both the top clubs in the NH are coached managed by Irish coaches and coached by English coaches as is the top side in NZ/SH. Kind of puts a dent in your typically paper thin "there are no good coaches in the NH" theory.

Fixed that for you

Same difference. They are all involved in coaching too.

Collapse2005 wrote:Both the top clubs in the NH are coached by Irish coaches as is the top side in NZ/SH. Kind of puts a dent in your typically paper thin "there are no good coaches in the NH" theory.

Hmmm...lost the plot time huh?

These squabbles are wholly unproductive in taking the sport forward. New Zealanders can feel aggrieved about where they are in the financial pecking order but navel-gazing doesn't get you anywhere.

All these claims and counter claims are meaningless unless there is a substantive debate also going on about the professional future of rugby. What do the details matter if you don't have any coherent view about how the sport should actually be structured? As part of that, we have to reckon with whether we have a growing international sport, or one that has already gone as far as it can.

Ben Ryan said recently he fears growing competition from basketball, saying recognition of the sport has increased sharply in Britain. It's a popular sport in New Zealand too, and has probably grown faster than rugby in the last ten of fifteen years over there. Rugby may be New Zealand's national sport but they have a hard time getting people to pay to watch it.

We shouldn't be complacent about the power of major international sports to crowd out all others. Rugby union used to be the third football code in Australia but soccer might have pushed it into fourth.

We know that Test matches bring in good revenue, and command large television audiences. By comparison, the numbers who watch the main professional leagues pale into insignificance. I've never thought the answer is to fill the calendar with more Test matches. I'd rather protect their value through scarcity, and look to grow the audiences for other levels of the game.

We are a contact sport which places unreasonable demands on players. We talk about club vs country disputes in football, but it's still possible to be a star for your country, and play a full part in the season for your club in that code. It's becoming ever harder in rugby. The average number of collisions in a game is ridiculous, and it doesn't help the future of the game. The prospect of severe injuries is potentially deterring casual players, who have always been the foundation of the sport.

One of the attractions of rugby is that it is a hard, physical sport, but it needs to be a professional code where a player can regularly pull on his shirt for his club, province or region, and be a key part of a local landscape, while also turning out for his country.

What is and what should be the priority of a Union, as a governing body of the sport ?

Increasing safe participation and access across a country at all levels below professional level or central ownership and control of the elite teams and players and the player pathways in order to win silverware as the aim.

Thus far in the first 24 years of professionalism, the Unions don't appear to be able to do both. It then depends on your view whether a top down or bottom up approach is the strategy for sustainable sport in a competitive world for leisure time for playing and spectating alike.

Cricket and rugby are probably the only examples of centralised control. In the UK we have seen a collapse in numbers playing cricket as the ECB does not have the funds to spend on increasing participation. England has however become one of the favourites for the 50 over format of the game. The limit has been reached on the number of tests per year and so new formats have to be adopted to try and generate interest.

Rugby is looking at the same issues with new competitions at the top end to generate interest and hence funds for a flawed model.

Rugby Fan wrote:These squabbles are wholly unproductive in taking the sport forward. New Zealanders can feel aggrieved about where they are in the financial pecking order but navel-gazing doesn't get you anywhere.

All these claims and counter claims are meaningless unless there is a substantive debate also going on about the professional future of rugby. What do the details matter if you don't have any coherent view about how the sport should actually be structured? As part of that, we have to reckon with whether we have a growing international sport, or one that has already gone as far as it can.

Ben Ryan said recently he fears growing competition from basketball, saying recognition of the sport has increased sharply in Britain. It's a popular sport in New Zealand too, and has probably grown faster than rugby in the last ten of fifteen years over there. Rugby may be New Zealand's national sport but they have a hard time getting people to pay to watch it.

We shouldn't be complacent about the power of major international sports to crowd out all others. Rugby union used to be the third football code in Australia but soccer might have pushed it into fourth.

We know that Test matches bring in good revenue, and command large television audiences. By comparison, the numbers who watch the main professional leagues pale into insignificance. I've never thought the answer is to fill the calendar with more Test matches. I'd rather protect their value through scarcity, and look to grow the audiences for other levels of the game.

We are a contact sport which places unreasonable demands on players. We talk about club vs country disputes in football, but it's still possible to be a star for your country, and play a full part in the season for your club in that code. It's becoming ever harder in rugby. The average number of collisions in a game is ridiculous, and it doesn't help the future of the game. The prospect of severe injuries is potentially deterring casual players, who have always been the foundation of the sport.

One of the attractions of rugby is that it is a hard, physical sport, but it needs to be a professional code where a player can regularly pull on his shirt for his club, province or region, and be a key part of a local landscape, while also turning out for his country.

Yes finally a great point

Our issue is obviously that ‘until’ such debate truly occurs the plundering continues at the wallet out, money only speaks level, and eventually the dialogue we eventually get to have will have that to deal with at some point.

Basketball is becoming popular again, particularly as a better, less contact yet still physically competitive and ‘cool’ option for youth, thanks to the NBA.

This years World cup is already plagued with likely injuries...Pocock, SOB, and possibly Sam Cane unlikely to either figure or be at their best in the sports show case tournament. Last year we nearly lost Savea to the north and had he gone our Sevens stocks would have suffered, so the impact of players leaving on those that stay and get injured can be significant.

Club demands vs country is I think managed better here as our goals are hierarchical...our Super coaches want their players in the RWC as much as anyone...to a point.

For me viewership is down simply because its more accessible on tv, even if only passively...’its on in the background’. A trip to the stadium is something i did for decades and these days I leave it to others to have their turn, but with so many options and distractions rugby is just one of many ways to fill ones time with, leaving it to the hardcore rather than general fans, of which the numbers are much less.

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:These squabbles are wholly unproductive in taking the sport forward. New Zealanders can feel aggrieved about where they are in the financial pecking order but navel-gazing doesn't get you anywhere.

All these claims and counter claims are meaningless unless there is a substantive debate also going on about the professional future of rugby. What do the details matter if you don't have any coherent view about how the sport should actually be structured? As part of that, we have to reckon with whether we have a growing international sport, or one that has already gone as far as it can.

Ben Ryan said recently he fears growing competition from basketball, saying recognition of the sport has increased sharply in Britain. It's a popular sport in New Zealand too, and has probably grown faster than rugby in the last ten of fifteen years over there. Rugby may be New Zealand's national sport but they have a hard time getting people to pay to watch it.

We shouldn't be complacent about the power of major international sports to crowd out all others. Rugby union used to be the third football code in Australia but soccer might have pushed it into fourth.

We know that Test matches bring in good revenue, and command large television audiences. By comparison, the numbers who watch the main professional leagues pale into insignificance. I've never thought the answer is to fill the calendar with more Test matches. I'd rather protect their value through scarcity, and look to grow the audiences for other levels of the game.

We are a contact sport which places unreasonable demands on players. We talk about club vs country disputes in football, but it's still possible to be a star for your country, and play a full part in the season for your club in that code. It's becoming ever harder in rugby. The average number of collisions in a game is ridiculous, and it doesn't help the future of the game. The prospect of severe injuries is potentially deterring casual players, who have always been the foundation of the sport.

One of the attractions of rugby is that it is a hard, physical sport, but it needs to be a professional code where a player can regularly pull on his shirt for his club, province or region, and be a key part of a local landscape, while also turning out for his country.

Yes finally a great point

Our issue is obviously that ‘until’ such debate truly occurs the plundering continues at the wallet out, money only speaks level, and eventually the dialogue we eventually get to have will have that to deal with at some point.

Basketball is becoming popular again, particularly as a better, less contact yet still physically competitive and ‘cool’ option for youth, thanks to the NBA.

This years World cup is already plagued with likely injuries...Pocock, SOB, and possibly Sam Cane unlikely to either figure or be at their best in the sports show case tournament. Last year we nearly lost Savea to the north and had he gone our Sevens stocks would have suffered, so the impact of players leaving on those that stay and get injured can be significant.

Club demands vs country is I think managed better here as our goals are hierarchical...our Super coaches want their players in the RWC as much as anyone...to a point.

For me viewership is down simply because its more accessible on tv, even if only passively...’its on in the background’. A trip to the stadium is something i did for decades and these days I leave it to others to have their turn, but with so many options and distractions rugby is just one of many ways to fill ones time with, leaving it to the hardcore rather than general fans, of which the numbers are much less.

The same hierarchical system exists in 4 unions of the 6 Nations - Ireland, Scotland, Italy and Wales. The NZRU earns more income than any of them. And has more club teams than any of them. And a larger player base than any of them.  And has a club comp that earns more tv monies than any of them.

New Zealand are likely to be to Rugby what Brazil currently is to Soccer.

Right now New Zealand are demanding that they (along with Australia) have a God given right to everyone elses money.  As the drivers of Professionalism they were either short sighted or getting in first to get a head start.

Right now they rely on South African and Lions money to keep the lights on.  Australia gave a NZ investor an opportunity to run an SR team but wouldn't to a much richer Australian. Sums up their problems. If Aus has a poor WC I think they will have to pick their national team. If they do that can NZ carry on as they are playing in SR against very weak teams.

Because they still can't keep up they are now looking for 6N money as the three Celts have better finances (wages, funds to make changes) while Italy is also catching up.  When that is not enough will they demand European Club money.

Home teams should keep all the attendance money but NZ probably want half of that too.  The 6N would be better giving some money to the B6N to develop it.

On SR being the best standard.  I would be confident that the Champions Cup is either better now or will be in five years.  Nonu was a poor player among the European elite yet playing really well in SR.  Fiji are a better team now that their players have moved North. Samoa and Tonga have fallen behind as they rely more on SR.

NZ and Aus seem to be the only nations currently in T1 that hasn't worked out that growing your professional clubs/franchises as a brand to look to either support itself or at least grow it so it's not a drain on finances.  While Scotland and Italy have worked this out and are building up there teams Aus is busy cutting teams and NZ think that having good teams will magically pay for themselves.

Brendan wrote:New Zealand are likely to be to Rugby what Brazil currently is to Soccer.

Right now New Zealand are demanding that they (along with Australia) have a God given right to everyone elses money.  As the drivers of Professionalism they were either short sighted or getting in first to get a head start.

Right now they rely on South African and Lions money to keep the lights on.  Australia gave a NZ investor an opportunity to run an SR team but wouldn't to a much richer Australian. Sums up their problems.  If Aus has a poor WC I think they will have to pick their national team.  If they do that can NZ carry on as they are playing in SR against very weak teams.

Because they still can't keep up they are now looking for 6N money as the three Celts have better finances (wages, funds to make changes) while Italy is also catching up.  When that is not enough will they demand European Club money.

Home teams should keep all the attendance money but NZ probably want half of that too.  The 6N would be better giving some money to the B6N to develop it.

On SR being the best standard.  I would be confident that the Champions Cup is either better now or will be in five years.  Nonu was a poor player among the European elite yet playing really well in SR.  Fiji are a better team now that their players have moved North. Samoa and Tonga have fallen behind as they rely more on SR.

NZ and Aus seem to be the only nations currently in T1 that hasn't worked out that growing your professional clubs/franchises as a brand to look to either support itself or at least grow it so it's not a drain on finances.  While Scotland and Italy have worked this out and are building up there teams Aus is busy cutting teams and NZ think that having good teams will magically pay for themselves.

Brazil are a shadow of the team they once were. I don't think NZ is anything like that.

I don't think NZRU have said they have a God-given right to everyone else's money. Equally the four unions of Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales don't have better finances than the NZRU, nor are they as big as the NZRU. The NZRU has the second highest income turnover after England. They earn a shed-load more in sponsorship deals and business support. They have a much better TV deal for their club teams. They finance five SR franchises compared to 4 in Irl and Wal, 2 in Scot and Italy and have private investors in the franchises as well. They pay their top players very well which are on average at par with what test players earn in Wales and Ireland. Their test match fees are one of the highest too.

It is at the second and third ranking player where some disparity is revealed. PRO14 average salaries are on average 15-20% below what a player can earn in the Premiership, and even less compared to the Top 14. In NZ, each SR squad has 40-42 players - total of 200+ players. It also has professional players in the Mitre 10 Cup. In short, it runs a much bigger professional operation. And thus its costs are higher too.

Proposing a solution that simply dilutes what the four PRO14 unions earn and have to re-distribute to the SANZAAR unions would not make sense. In theory, increasing the size of the pie and sharing it more evenly seems like a good idea. But as ever, the devil would be in the detail, and it would take time for that devil to emerge. A good idea now could transform over time into a bad deal for the four 6N unions and see them fall further behind in earning rugby income. The WRU is already hugely reliant on concert and other event income from the Millennium to sustain its annual turnover - rugby income on its own is not enough.

Brendan, lol. What planet do you live on? Poth Ale has already done a good job at blowing your rant to pieces with ‘facts’ so there’s no need to pick the carcass. When are the Spice Girls playing at your stadium next to keep Welsh rugby afloat?

It's another good point that rugby can raise funds outside of rugby. Any cross sports or concerts occur in stadia down south ebop?

ebop wrote:Brendan, lol. What planet do you live on?  Poth Ale has already done a good job at blowing your rant to pieces with ‘facts’ so there’s no need to pick the carcass. When are the Spice Girls playing at your stadium next to keep Welsh rugby afloat?

Brendan is an Irish fan, IIRC.

Is he? Probably went to see the Spice Girls at Croke Park recently. 7.5, yes concerts are held at stadia in NZ. Not Eden Park though because it’s surrounded by nimbys that bought houses in a desirable area and then like to complain when activities don’t mesh with their lifestyle. NZR doesn’t own any stadiums like RFU and WRU etc.

Listen, folk need to heed the wise words of Neil Diamond

Money Talks!

Deal with it!

I said New Zealand were likely to become the Brazil of Rugby not that they were already.  In Soccer money in Europe started to increase in the 1990s.  It took about 10-15 years for Brazil's club scene to become irrelevant for the National side.  When you consider that rugby it was probably about 2014 or so that money increased alot in Europe for rugby.  It will be interesting to see what happens when SR renew their deals.  The rumour of two of the big SA teams coming North will cause harm.  The dropping of the SA economy nd interest in Aus will cause more problems at renewal.

I stand by my point that Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy are better placed for the future.  Most of them are growing their income both on and off the field.  The income is also more spread over different competitions.  I would say that Irish players and players in ireland are paid better at a professional level than NZ.  If NZ earn so much why can they only afford to keep the top players while lowly European teams are able to buy up NZ players at will outside of their top 30 players. How many of the SR squads are above the €6m that we constantly fight over in the Pro14.  None of the SA teams even counting in all their 100 plus players.

Yes NZ union gets more money but most is spent on things like travel that is far higher than 6N teams.  They also play more international games and you would have to wonder how much more they can play in a season.  The Nations league is all about SANZAAR looking to add two more teams and getting the 6N to pay for it.  As shown this season the Celts can play each other for extra games and still get loads of money.  A 10 game 6N each year would more than cover what the 6N unions will get from the Nations league.

NZ are trying to run the 5 SR teams and Mitre 10 teams when in reality they can't afford it.  They need to turn the Mitre into a non professional league if they want to keep up. In all the chatter what internal changes has NZ said they will make. None. The 4 PRO14 NH unions have been actively making changes to get to where they are on a much better footing then 15 years ago. Scotland are too of the class for this.

ebop wrote:Is he? Probably went to see the Spice Girls at Croke Park recently. 7.5, yes concerts are held at stadia in NZ. Not Eden Park though because it’s surrounded by nimbys that bought houses in a desirable area and then like to complain when activities don’t mesh with their lifestyle. NZR doesn’t own any stadiums like RFU and WRU etc.

You seem to know a lot about the Spice Girls ebop. Serious amount of ladies passed my office on their way to the festivities. It was like as if the pied piper (for ladies) was rounding them all up.

ebop wrote:Brendan, lol. What planet do you live on?  Poth Ale has already done a good job at blowing your rant to pieces with ‘facts’ so there’s no need to pick the carcass. When are the Spice Girls playing at your stadium next to keep Welsh rugby afloat?

Mel B told me no one would know I was there. When I see her next at Mrs Bucket's candle light dinner I will have to tell her she was wrong.

It's sad that this thread is about NH v SH and club v country and you try to make fun of one of the reasons why clubs are getting richer and why NH unions are growing off the field. Own your own stadium and then build as much around it as possible so that it is busy ever day not just match day. If the spice girls want to contribute to Rugby we will happily take their money

Brendan wrote:

ebop wrote:Brendan, lol. What planet do you live on?  Poth Ale has already done a good job at blowing your rant to pieces with ‘facts’ so there’s no need to pick the carcass. When are the Spice Girls playing at your stadium next to keep Welsh rugby afloat?

Mel B told me no one would know I was there.  When I see her next at Mrs Bucket's candle light dinner I will have to tell her she was wrong.

It's sad that this thread is about NH v SH and club v country and you try to make fun of one of the reasons  why clubs are getting richer and why NH unions are growing off the field.  Own your own stadium and then build as much around it as possible so that it is busy ever day not just match day.  If the spice girls want to contribute to Rugby we will happily take their money

Go on then EBop and tell us what you want, what you really, really want..... :-)