England V All Blacks
-
@Rapido Thanks, that sort of makes sense and whilst it is an anomaly in being the only in window sharing, as @Frye says, there is no ability to have a reciprocal arrangement.. So $1m for three tests and the regional/Maori matches is some recompense for the costs of touring. I'd guess the Lions get a lot more out of their sponsorship to defray costs. This would be easier to quantify for the Lions as opposed to a national team as the sponsorship deal is effectively on a four year cycle rather than an all encompassing deal.
-
ABs by 13+. When is the team named?
-
@No-Quarter said in England V All Blacks:
ABs by 13+. When is the team named?
THURSDAY 2 November 2017 at 11.00pm NZT!!!
-
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@Rapido Thanks, that sort of makes sense and whilst it is an anomaly in being the only in window sharing, as @Frye says, there is no ability to have a reciprocal arrangement.. So $1m for three tests and the regional/Maori matches is some recompense for the costs of touring. I'd guess the Lions get a lot more out of their sponsorship to defray costs. This would be easier to quantify for the Lions as opposed to a national team as the sponsorship deal is effectively on a four year cycle rather than an all encompassing deal.
They would be getting all revenues from tour merchandise bearing only the Lions brand. That's thousand of jerseys/polos/hats/scarves etc etc plus would have tie in with supporter tour deals and their own sponsorships.
All hotels and travel are possibly covered by NZ?? -
There's some funny stuff being written in the UK press about this. One Telegraph writer mentioned how not many England players would make a combined team except
Itoje
Billy Vunipola
Daly
FarrellWTF?
OK , even if you put aside the need for different skillsets and were a selector picking solely on playing ability to make a team to play in your own style I can't see these guys making the XV.
Itoje does not make it in as a lock over Whitelock and BBBR but would make the 23 as a lock/6 bencher
Billy V? Again a bench player only if you are playing an expansive game but if you plan to be more direct he could start
Daly? get of the grass. nowhere near the 23 even
Farrell? About on a par with Crotty but could possibly squeeze in on goalkicking duty.I think Jamie George could make the bench as reserve hooker and you can certainly look at Mako V at prop. The locks are good squad members but with Itoje on the bench aren't needed.
Jonathon Joseph is the only other one that would get a strong sniff of a jersey at 13. -
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@Rapido Thanks, that sort of makes sense and whilst it is an anomaly in being the only in window sharing, as @Frye says, there is no ability to have a reciprocal arrangement.. So $1m for three tests and the regional/Maori matches is some recompense for the costs of touring. I'd guess the Lions get a lot more out of their sponsorship to defray costs. This would be easier to quantify for the Lions as opposed to a national team as the sponsorship deal is effectively on a four year cycle rather than an all encompassing deal.
They would be getting all revenues from tour merchandise bearing only the Lions brand. That's thousand of jerseys/polos/hats/scarves etc etc plus would have tie in with supporter tour deals and their own sponsorships.
All hotels and travel are possibly covered by NZ??You'd hope they get the royalties from all the merchandising but I doubt it; however what they do get would be substantial. Mind you that is the same, to one degree or another for the national sides - ie you'd hope that the NZRFU get their proper share of royalties from the AB merchandising. But again that all goes into the melting pot for running the whole structure rather than being tour or match specific.
I've no idea about who foots the travel and hotel expenses, I guess that was part of the original question, just that I wasn't specific.
Things that mark out a Lions tour as different (apart from the 4 year cycle, 12 years for you guys) is the length of the tour, together with the size of the accompanying fanbase. You would hope that the revenue from the fanbase would help alleviate the cost of the length of the tour.
-
-
@Catogrande if you look at the Lions website store there is no combined merchandise at all. It is all Lions only and much of it is made by Canterbury.
The ABs are currently selling the special Super Rugby jerseys but don't seem to have any other Lions tour merch at all.
The AB jersey is not a special tour one and there doesn't appear to be any combined merch either.
Looks to me like they are keeping the revenue streams separate. -
@Bones said in England V All Blacks:
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
Jamie Joseph is the only other one that would get a strong sniff of a jersey at 13.
Would need a release from Japan wouldn't he? Might be a bit of a plodder at 13 these days.
Well spotted.
Fingers moving faster than brain this morning (and evry morning)
-
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@gollum said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.
From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.
Whats not to like?
The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing
What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.
And theres the crux of it.
NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.
Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?
Maybe because the host nation built the stadium, does all the marketing, pays all the operational costs, and assumes all the risk.
Shouldn't receive 100% but no way should the hosts only receive 50% either.
-
@MiketheSnow said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@gollum said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.
From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.
Whats not to like?
The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing
What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.
And theres the crux of it.
NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.
Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?
Maybe because the host nation built the stadium, does all the marketing, pays all the operational costs, and assumes all the risk.
Shouldn't receive 100% but no way should the hosts only receive 50% either.
That's one argument but when you are talking about a game outside of the schedule it becomes just like a concert. The band promoter (NZRU) is saying 'yes my band can come and play at your venue but this is the cost'. I guess that NZ are saying that if they rented a venue and paid the costs they would net 50% so that's what they want.
-
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
There's some funny stuff being written in the UK press about this. One Telegraph writer mentioned how not many England players would make a combined team except
Itoje
Billy Vunipola
Daly
FarrellWTF?
OK , even if you put aside the need for different skillsets and were a selector picking solely on playing ability to make a team to play in your own style I can't see these guys making the XV.
Itoje does not make it in as a lock over Whitelock and BBBR but would make the 23 as a lock/6 bencher
Billy V? Again a bench player only if you are playing an expansive game but if you plan to be more direct he could start
Daly? get of the grass. nowhere near the 23 even
Farrell? About on a par with Crotty but could possibly squeeze in on goalkicking duty.I think Jamie George could make the bench as reserve hooker and you can certainly look at Mako V at prop. The locks are good squad members but with Itoje on the bench aren't needed.
Jonathon Joseph is the only other one that would get a strong sniff of a jersey at 13.Daly offers no less than JJ (slightly more, imho).
-
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande if you look at the Lions website store there is no combined merchandise at all. It is all Lions only and much of it is made by Canterbury.
The ABs are currently selling the special Super Rugby jerseys but don't seem to have any other Lions tour merch at all.
The AB jersey is not a special tour one and there doesn't appear to be any combined merch either.
Looks to me like they are keeping the revenue streams separate.Sorry I didn't explain myself well. I didn't mean to infer that there was or should be any sharing of merchandising revenue just that as with the Lions you would hope that all the national unions got their proper share of their merchandising.
-
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
@MiketheSnow said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@gollum said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.
From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.
Whats not to like?
The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing
What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.
And theres the crux of it.
NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.
Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?
Maybe because the host nation built the stadium, does all the marketing, pays all the operational costs, and assumes all the risk.
Shouldn't receive 100% but no way should the hosts only receive 50% either.
That's one argument but when you are talking about a game outside of the schedule it becomes just like a concert. The band promoter (NZRU) is saying 'yes my band can come and play at your venue but this is the cost'. I guess that NZ are saying that if they rented a venue and paid the costs they would net 50% so that's what they want.
I can see that argument for outside the window games but that throws up the argument of whether there should be outside the window games. We already have the 6N and you guys have TRC then there are the summer tours for us and the EOYTs for you guys. In between that we all have to fit in the domestic demands which are the lifeblood of future talent, then you have the RWC every four years and in between the Lions tours. We don't need more international rugby.
Inside the window games and revenue sharing is a whole different can of worms. Why should any of the home nations or France agree to revenue sharing when the reciprocal share from a game in NZ would be so much smaller? Because NZ is a draw card? Not a valid argument when we all fill our stadia for pretty much all of the games we have anyway.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the current system is as good as it could but as it stands there does not seem to be a fairer alternative. If there is I would be happy to hear it.
-
@MiketheSnow said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@gollum said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.
From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.
Whats not to like?
The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing
What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.
And theres the crux of it.
NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.
Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?
Maybe because the host nation built the stadium, does all the marketing, pays all the operational costs, and assumes all the risk.
Shouldn't receive 100% but no way should the hosts only receive 50% either.
There is no reason this has to take place at Twickenham. They could play at Wembley Stadium which holds more, would generate more revenue and the NZRU has as much to do with building and operating that stadium.
Not sure how the home side is handling all the marketing for a fixture like this? The NZRU are exclusively marketing the Lions tour I suppose? Adidas and AIG wouldn't be pumping it like crazy? The ABs will anchor overseas TV rights and interest for this fixture - much like they did for the Chicago fixture last year. They will also clearly be driving ticket prices relative to a "baseline" test against Samoa etc.
As Crucial said think of it as a concert or a boxing match. If you want to play by the rules of a standard home fixture wait until 2018. The bloom is usually off Eddie by then.
-
@rotated said in England V All Blacks:
@MiketheSnow said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@gollum said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.
From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.
Whats not to like?
The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing
What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.
And theres the crux of it.
NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.
Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?
Maybe because the host nation built the stadium, does all the marketing, pays all the operational costs, and assumes all the risk.
Shouldn't receive 100% but no way should the hosts only receive 50% either.
There is no reason this has to take place at Twickenham. They could play at Wembley Stadium which holds more, would generate more revenue and the NZRU has as much to do with building and operating that stadium.
Not sure how the home side is handling all the marketing for a fixture like this? The NZRU are exclusively marketing the Lions tour I suppose? Adidas and AIG wouldn't be pumping it like crazy? The ABs will anchor overseas TV rights and interest for this fixture - much like they did for the Chicago fixture last year. They will also clearly be driving ticket prices relative to a "baseline" test against Samoa etc.
As Crucial said think of it as a concert or a boxing match. If you want to play by the rules of a standard home fixture wait until 2018. The bloom is usually off Eddie by then.
Very true. Perhaps the RFU should pursue the Wembley option with both parties getting 50% of the proceeds after costs.
Alternatively, the RFU could charge for the use of Twickenham and then England Rugby and the NZRFU can share the proceeds 50% each.
Apples and oranges with the marketing example you provided.
The B&I Lions market the 2017 Tour because that's how they get a ticket allocation. The NZRFU then market it domestically - tv spots, billboards, newspapers etc.
For a London based England v NZ fixture, the RFU will market the match far more than the NZRFU.
If no NZers flew from NZ to watch the match, then it would still be a full house. English, UK based NZers, others.
As far as I'm aware the NZRFU gets all the TV money when shown in NZ, and the RFU gets the UK TV rights.
Not sure, but that could be more than the gate money after costs??????
-
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
Inside the window games and revenue sharing is a whole different can of worms. Why should any of the home nations or France agree to revenue sharing when the reciprocal share from a game in NZ would be so much smaller? Because NZ is a draw card? Not a valid argument when we all fill our stadia for pretty much all of the games we have anyway.
Because ideally you want to split revenue based on some logic. Don't really care what the logic is - it can be 50/50, it can be based on individual bargaining to try and establish who is bringing the most value to the fixture, it can be done with a mind to subsidizing weaker unions that do not have the means to generate revenue whatever - just be consistent.
For me NZ deserve a bigger slice because clearly they are driving so much more value for these fixtures than what they are bringing in. If NZ could just unilaterally organize their own schedule and sell those European fixtures to the highest bidder each year they would be bringing in a whole lot more cash then what they are now.
-
@rotated said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
Inside the window games and revenue sharing is a whole different can of worms. Why should any of the home nations or France agree to revenue sharing when the reciprocal share from a game in NZ would be so much smaller? Because NZ is a draw card? Not a valid argument when we all fill our stadia for pretty much all of the games we have anyway.
Because ideally you want to split revenue based on some logic. Don't really care what the logic is - it can be 50/50, it can be based on individual bargaining to try and establish who is bringing the most value to the fixture, it can be done with a mind to subsidizing weaker unions that do not have the means to generate revenue whatever - just be consistent.
For me NZ deserve a bigger slice because clearly they are driving so much more value for these fixtures than what they are bringing in. If NZ could just unilaterally organize their own schedule and sell those European fixtures to the highest bidder each year they would be bringing in a whole lot more cash then what they are now.
I agree to a degree, with your first part in that consistency is vital. Also that something that might help the weaker unions would be good but given the tales of corruption that we hear around some unions that is not an easy one to agree on.
Your second part I don't agree with so much. You say clearly NZ are driving so much more value for these fixtures and I say (and so do the RFU) that this is of no significance (and is not easily quantifiable). England host two or three 6N matches each year and three or four Autumn internationals each year. With the exception of Samoa and Fiji they are all sold out at full price on the ticket. The TV rights are snapped up well in advance of even knowing who the Autumn visitors are. How much more value does NZ bring to this than say Oz or SA?
Your view on this:-
If NZ could just unilaterally organize their own schedule and sell those European fixtures to the highest bidder each year they would be bringing in a whole lot more cash then what they are now.Isn't that how the Harlem Globetrotters got going?
-
There are two clear scenarios here.
- the 'out of window' games - these are fully negotiable and will only go ahead if both parties feel they can reach a deal. That could take many forms including a 50/50 cost/revenue basis
- the 'in window' games. I am assuming there are standards set by WR and the host is under no obligation to pay out more than the minimum (eg the pittance Fiji got playing England this year). This one is more a moral argument whereby some touring teams are seeing the larger TV rights, ticket prices and sales that occur when they tour and are asking for a slice of that extra generated money that they bring.
I get that the RFU feel they have invested in order to take advantage of the current set up and scheduled games and if they knew they were going to have to share then maybe some investments wouldn't be made.
What would be good would be for WR to establish a formula for sharing that distributed 'appearance fees' for touring teams based on deviations from average. That way a touring team that generates extra money gets some benefit from that.I think it's a fairly unique situation in international sport which is why there isn't much to use as a starting point. Maybe cricket is in a similar position?
-
As an aside to this conversation I see today that it has been announced that both England and France will tour the Pacific Islands, also that Georgia and Romania are guaranteed a game against 6N opposition each year and lastly that the Autumn Internationals will include as least six games against Tier 2 opposition.
So more international rugby
