England V All Blacks
-
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@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.
Because they should share revenue with opposition so that there remains opposition.
What did Fiji get from England game last year? 150k?
Why can't there be a more equitable split of profits (that is reciprocated for all hosts) so that the game worldwide benefits?
If host DON'T play anyone nobody makes anything. Fiji turns up and plays and make 150k, England make 50m*. Something is not right there.
- number pulled from bum
-
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@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?
You say Harlem Globetrotters, I would draw a parallel closer to Norte Dame college football program who make money hand over fist doing just that.
I can't find the most recent ticket scales for England tests when the ABs play in London - but at least in the case of Ireland, ABs scale up to 60% higher than Australia in some categories, and almost 300% higher than Samoa.
Lords' sells out for almost every test also, I suppose a home Ashes series provide a negligible impact to the ECB given they are going to sell out anyway and Sky are going to have the rights anyway.
So yes they are somewhat more of a draw. There is a reason England is courting NZ for this they will bring significantly more revenue than a second game against Australia for example - they are just unwilling to share any of it. Let's hope common sense prevails!
-
@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.
Twickers makes shit loads from the Corporates though.
And we're only talking the gate st the moment. There's also the broadcadt rights.
-
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@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.
Because they should share revenue with opposition so that there remains opposition.
What did Fiji get from England game last year? 150k?
Why can't there be a more equitable split of profits (that is reciprocated for all hosts) so that the game worldwide benefits?
If host DON'T play anyone nobody makes anything. Fiji turns up and plays and make 150k, England make 50m*. Something is not right there.
- number pulled from bum
At tier 1 level there will almost certainly always be opposition, revenue sharing or not. In regard to the much poorer unions like Fiji I wholeheartedly agree that there must be solid financial encouragement and I also agree that £150K was a derisory amount but the flip side of that coin is where would any extra money go? The Fijian players? The grassroots of rugby in Fiji? Improving the rugby infrastructure in Fiji? Into the back pockets of the administrators? It's a piss-poor situation and needs to be addressed but that is not something the RFU can do unilaterally.
That is one issue. The idea of revenue sharing generally is another issue. If we're talking about gate revenue only then you have to make a comparison between, certainly the tier 1 sides. How much is the gate at say Eden Park with its 50,000 capacity or Westpac with its 30,000 capacity? How does that compare to Twickenham with its 83,000 capacity? So the idea is we build the stadium and fill it (Not just for NZ remember but also for Aus, SA, Ireland, Wales, France, Scotland, Argentina, Italy - Italy ffs), share that with NZ and then we go over and get a share of a 30K gate. So that means the RFU is helping bankroll the NZRU. Maybe we get a say in selection on the back of it. And please don't tell me that revenue sharing for NZ is anything about benefitting the worldwide game, that is for the benefit of the NZRU.
You're right that if the hosts don't play anyone then no-one makes anything, but then again if NZ only play for money and no-one wants to pay them then what?
BTW I would estimate the gate revenue at Twickenham to be between £6 and £7M rather than the bum be-smirched £50M. this based on a ticket price of £75 x 83,000. Many tickets will be cheaper but there are also the boxes which would be dearer, but somewhere in that ball park I'd say.
-
@rotated said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@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?
You say Harlem Globetrotters, I would draw a parallel closer to Norte Dame college football program who make money hand over fist doing just that.
I can't find the most recent ticket scales for England tests when the ABs play in London - but at least in the case of Ireland, ABs scale up to 60% higher than Australia in some categories, and almost 300% higher than Samoa.
Lords' sells out for almost every test also, I suppose a home Ashes series provide a negligible impact to the ECB given they are going to sell out anyway and Sky are going to have the rights anyway.
So yes they are somewhat more of a draw. There is a reason England is courting NZ for this they will bring significantly more revenue than a second game against Australia for example - they are just unwilling to share any of it. Let's hope common sense prevails!
Yeah the Globetrotters analogy was a bit tongue in cheek and not very good. Apologies for that. I cannot say much about the pricing for the other unions but for England the pricing in the majority of the seats is the same for Aus, NZ and SA (not sure about Argies) during the Autumn internationals and is the same price for all the 6N games. All those games are at full capacity, so logic suggests that NZ is no more of a draw card than SA or Australia.
The reason the RFU are putting this potential game out there is because there is a call for it just because England are now No2 and they fancy our chances. Money is not the main driving force, it honestly isn't. They just don't need it. Over the past twenty years or so we've played Aus and SA more times at Twickenham than NZ and yet we're still doing OK for money.
-
Agree with this Cato. The estimated revenue from a high profile match at Twickenham is about £9m. Including hospitality, etc.
The reported match fee, prior to Tew's announcement that NZ would not agree to matches/new tour schedule, was c. £1.5m. It was reported that £3m was sought and refused.
The reported revenue split for the Chicago test between Ireland and NZ was €1m for IRFU and approx €1.3m for NZRU. If accurate, this reflects a horses for courses approach, rather than a one match fee fits all - neutral venue, albeit NZ's sponsor's hometown. On the other hand, the Irish drove a fair chunk of the stadium numbers more than likely. All in all, a fair split all round - and one that helped both unions in making a further foray into US interest. And one that should be repeated if it made sense for both parties.
Revenue-sharing as a general policy sounds fair in principle when using the English RFU as an example with their far greater revenues and capacity to generate additional revenue through market size, etc.
Wales, Ireland, Scotland have comparable turnovers to New Zealand in their unions - €65-70m.
The three unions largely get their turnover from Home test matches and a share of 6N TV income. Their clubs participate in a league valued at €12m per annum.
I don't know what the split of NZRU income is but I do know that the size of the Super Rugby deal is far, far greater than the PRO12.
-
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@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.
Because they should share revenue with opposition so that there remains opposition.
What did Fiji get from England game last year? 150k?
Why can't there be a more equitable split of profits (that is reciprocated for all hosts) so that the game worldwide benefits?
If host DON'T play anyone nobody makes anything. Fiji turns up and plays and make 150k, England make 50m*. Something is not right there.
- number pulled from bum
At tier 1 level there will almost certainly always be opposition, revenue sharing or not. In regard to the much poorer unions like Fiji I wholeheartedly agree that there must be solid financial encouragement and I also agree that £150K was a derisory amount but the flip side of that coin is where would any extra money go? The Fijian players? The grassroots of rugby in Fiji? Improving the rugby infrastructure in Fiji? Into the back pockets of the administrators? It's a piss-poor situation and needs to be addressed but that is not something the RFU can do unilaterally.
Dead right, can't pay these chaps too much, never know what they'll spend it on.
-
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
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??I don't know the answer to your last question but DHL, as the official Lions series sponsor, must be paying a bucketload for naming rights. I would assume most of that money covers tour expenses so that income from the ticket sales equals profit for both parties (NZR and Lions).
-
@Bovidae are they the sponsor for the tours to Aus & SA as well, cos they were in the 2005 tour, so while a decent wedge of money to sponsor, it must also be of tangible benefit to them??
-
@taniwharugby Yep, I think DHL has been the tour sponsor for all Lions tours for a while. DHL was everywhere in 2005.
HSBC was their main sponsor in 2009 and 2013. No idea for this tour as I don't think the jersey has been released yet.
-
Last Lions tour, ARU made a reported £40m. The four unions from Britain and Ireland split a profit of £6m approx. The majority of TV rights goes to the host country. They sell them. Lions gain sponsorships, etc to meet the estimated £15m cost of the tour.
Each player on squad gets the same amount - €70k. Each union receives approx the same for each of their players that go on tour to cover absences from June tours, injury cover etc.
-
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@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.
Because they should share revenue with opposition so that there remains opposition.
What did Fiji get from England game last year? 150k?
Why can't there be a more equitable split of profits (that is reciprocated for all hosts) so that the game worldwide benefits?
If host DON'T play anyone nobody makes anything. Fiji turns up and plays and make 150k, England make 50m*. Something is not right there.
- number pulled from bum
At tier 1 level there will almost certainly always be opposition, revenue sharing or not. In regard to the much poorer unions like Fiji I wholeheartedly agree that there must be solid financial encouragement and I also agree that £150K was a derisory amount but the flip side of that coin is where would any extra money go? The Fijian players? The grassroots of rugby in Fiji? Improving the rugby infrastructure in Fiji? Into the back pockets of the administrators? It's a piss-poor situation and needs to be addressed but that is not something the RFU can do unilaterally.
That is one issue. The idea of revenue sharing generally is another issue. If we're talking about gate revenue only then you have to make a comparison between, certainly the tier 1 sides. How much is the gate at say Eden Park with its 50,000 capacity or Westpac with its 30,000 capacity? How does that compare to Twickenham with its 83,000 capacity? So the idea is we build the stadium and fill it (Not just for NZ remember but also for Aus, SA, Ireland, Wales, France, Scotland, Argentina, Italy - Italy ffs), share that with NZ and then we go over and get a share of a 30K gate. So that means the RFU is helping bankroll the NZRU. Maybe we get a say in selection on the back of it. And please don't tell me that revenue sharing for NZ is anything about benefitting the worldwide game, that is for the benefit of the NZRU.
You're right that if the hosts don't play anyone then no-one makes anything, but then again if NZ only play for money and no-one wants to pay them then what?
BTW I would estimate the gate revenue at Twickenham to be between £6 and £7M rather than the bum be-smirched £50M. this based on a ticket price of £75 x 83,000. Many tickets will be cheaper but there are also the boxes which would be dearer, but somewhere in that ball park I'd say.
I'm not saying NZ taking this stance purely altruistically but it will result in better funding of the game worldwide.
Equally I can see why England would resist it.
-
@Frye said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@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.
Because they should share revenue with opposition so that there remains opposition.
What did Fiji get from England game last year? 150k?
Why can't there be a more equitable split of profits (that is reciprocated for all hosts) so that the game worldwide benefits?
If host DON'T play anyone nobody makes anything. Fiji turns up and plays and make 150k, England make 50m*. Something is not right there.
- number pulled from bum
At tier 1 level there will almost certainly always be opposition, revenue sharing or not. In regard to the much poorer unions like Fiji I wholeheartedly agree that there must be solid financial encouragement and I also agree that £150K was a derisory amount but the flip side of that coin is where would any extra money go? The Fijian players? The grassroots of rugby in Fiji? Improving the rugby infrastructure in Fiji? Into the back pockets of the administrators? It's a piss-poor situation and needs to be addressed but that is not something the RFU can do unilaterally.
Dead right, can't pay these chaps too much, never know what they'll spend it on.
Please don't try to pull the race card on this. There have been quite e few discussions on The Fern that have touched upon corruption in the PI unions, most notably Fiji, so do a bit of research before laying that one on me.
-
@booboo Revenue sharing would obviously help the Samoas and Fijis except that it would likely lead to the Tier1 unions thinking "Fuck that, we're not going to play them, it'll cost us a bindle and we'll get fuck all back on a reciprocal match".
So much for growing the game and helping out the "lesser" nations.
And yes, we can all see why England would resist it, we make a lot of money (relatively), why should we want to share it? Please, give me a good reason.
A question or two here. What is the arrangement for both in window and out of window matches between SANZAR nations? What is the arrangement between NZ and Scotland and Italy?
-
@Catogrande I think the only out of window matches we have had were v Aus on neutral ground, so was purely money generators.
-
@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.Dunn of i I agree with that.
Itoje would be 6 for sure.
I'd take Farrell over any NZ centre. The guy is utter class and has a MASSIVE all around skill set. He'll probably be the first name on the team sheet for the Lions.
-
@MajorRage Agree strongly on Farrell Jr. Strong defender and very good distributor (as you'd expect of a bloke who plays 10). He also has the benefit of being metronome-like in his kicking.
-
-
@taniwharugby said in England V All Blacks:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11820978
Just read that before, what a bunch of fluffybunnies
Can't wait to they lose a few games and turn back on themselves again -
"However, Ritchie is believed to have countered by stating that there is a meeting of the RFU's board next week and that, as the national governing body, they may now refuse approval for the match to take place within their jurisdiction. This stance indicates the union's willingness to adopt ultra-aggressive negotiating tactics, in order to force the issue."
Had wondered about that. Wondered if teams could just organise games at Wembley or Olympic Stadium - for a hiring fee to the stadium owners, bypassing RFU.
