England V All Blacks
-
@Catogrande the deal is, we make heaps of money, the guys in Red lose. A lot. And get beat up a bit. It's a sweet deal.
-
@mariner4life said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande the deal is, we make heaps of money, the guys in Red lose. A lot. And get beat up a bit. It's a sweet deal.
We also provide the one free near death experience to a player of your choosing.
-
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
@mariner4life said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande the deal is, we make heaps of money, the guys in Red lose. A lot. And get beat up a bit. It's a sweet deal.
We also provide the one free near death experience to a player of your choosing.
yep, and they indicate which guy is the lucky recipient by having him arrogantly chuck grass during the first haka...
everyone else has to pay for a bungy jump
-
@Stargazer according to this article, the clubs would be sweet with 50% of the revenue....
So if the clubs want fiddy, we want fiddy and the RFU want a hundy...
-
If this game doesnt happen I see it as more their loss than ours ,
I personally think if we beat the Lions this year , ( IF) and I think we should , with England well represented
We gain more psychologically by making England wait for their opportunity to use us as their measuring stick
-
@Catogrande 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?
Well the argument goes that the deal is reciprocal.
Here's a question for you, not trolling at all and I don't know the answer, but what is the financial deal with the Lions tour?
The Lions get a revenue share, which gets distributed to the 4 home unions.
The only 'in window' revenue sharing in world rugby.
They're clever guys.
It's not anything like 50-50 though. I think 2005 was a $1m fee or something like that. For the tour.
-
@Rapido 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:
@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?
Well the argument goes that the deal is reciprocal.
Here's a question for you, not trolling at all and I don't know the answer, but what is the financial deal with the Lions tour?
The Lions get a revenue share, which gets distributed to the 4 home unions.
The only 'in window' revenue sharing in world rugby.
They're clever guys.
It's not anything like 50-50 though. I think 2005 was a $1m fee or something like that. For the tour.
The Lions don't host games so the reciprocal agreement that exists with regular tours doesn't make sense in this scenario.
-
Typical Irish, just won't let it go will you?
-
@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.
