Carter and Evans to leave for Europe?

[shtove]

The money issue just won't and can't go away. The only hope for SH unions is that the IRB steps in and does something drastic.[/b]

Just saw a snippet of a Michael Vaughan interview - he reckons English cricketers will be playing in the Indian league within a couple of years: money's too big.

But some sports franchises are in trouble from the credit crunch - like Liverpool FC - these guys borrow big to pay big, and their lenders can screw them very quickly. Plus a recession will drain advertising revenue.

We're definitely in the middle of a collapse in lending, which means there won't be so much money in sport over the next few years. Maybe there won't be enough to tempt the talent out of the domestic leagues, and the national unions can get the upper hand again.

 

[Bullitt]

and the national unions can get the upper hand again.[/b]

First the socialists try to ruin my bank account and any chance of affording aanything, then the ******** ruin my sports.

Damn communists.

 

[C A Iversen]

The irony that New Zealand for years were poaching Pacific Islanders and claiming it was fine... [/b]

Throw away comment. Always fallen back on by the clever people in the North who are sooo clever they never string any evidence together, lol!

We do not pick any players from any of the pacific nation's national development programs, age-grades or national sides. If any of those unions had a Super 14 club or any professional competition, we'd be the first nation with our hands up to the IRB to regulate this world-wide so England, France, Australia and ourselves don't destroy them.

The poaching from the Northern Hemisphere will be addressed with regulation in the next 4-5 years (it hasn't quite reached crisis point yet), I completely believe it'll have to be though.

As for the comments from others. How come when we have a $100million dollar deal with adidas we can't compete with clubs with a 10,000-15,000 attendance? That's blind fools logic! That money isn't annual or bi-annual. I believe the deal was for 10 years! The actual figure it's worth after taxes is about $6 million dollars a year. To maintain the All Blacks. We can't pay 5 Super 14 clubs with that! New Zealand is far from being the rich rugby nation!

The NH club of 10,000-15,000 fanbase is only shooting for about one of our players. What about all the clubs with 20,000-30,000? There's more than a few of those. There are also those in the North whose local economies are bigger than our whole countries with more people in one city.

We are talking about a multitude of ridiculously disproportionate economies going after the players from one relatively small one! The population over here is only 4 million, the ability to generate enough money to keep fighting this is not infinite.

The national sides from the north will be kicking our All Black behinds all over the place in 4-5 years and laughing at how "weak the fabled All Blacks" are and how big and heroic they are.

If you guys want to justify playing the All Blacks "C" or maybe even "D" team in 5 years to win, then you go on, you big brave tough-guy northerners!

Hand us the biggest and most realistic excuse possible! :lol:

 

[Bullitt]

So that's a "yes", you will continue using PI's for the national side while we use 1 kiwi each in our club sides?

 

[odyssey]

Hi Guys

Cant they use luke mccalister for flyhalf

 

[C A Iversen]

lol. I shouldn't even waste my time trying to convince you of anything, Teh! I don't think anyone on this forum has ever changed your mind on anything.

As for odyssey. No, he's in the Northern Hemisphere too.

 

[Prestwick]

But some sports franchises are in trouble from the credit crunch - like Liverpool FC - these guys borrow big to pay big, and their lenders can screw them very quickly. Plus a recession will drain advertising revenue.
[/b]

Thats completely different.

First, Liverpool FC is not a franchise. The many NFL and NHL teams are franchises, with the owners being given permission to operate them by a central body in return for money. Liverpool FC and Chelsea FC are private limited companies, run as a business by a board in the interest of its shareholders. Two completely different things. Simple GCSE Business Studies.

A cock up like Liverpool FC could have happened in the credit crunch, the middle of the dot com boom, the 1929 Wall Street Crash or even the South Sea Bubble crash. Two guys with wildly optimistic expectations bouyed by big fat payments from their American sports franchises, buy a football team/company and burden it with hundreds of millions of pounds worth of debt and then some more when they try and get a stadium built on credit too.

Look at Glazier and Manchester United. Same strategy except they've let Fergie and the day to day management team get on with it. The result, bumper results mean bumper television money which offsets advertising any day. Business Partners falling out can cause as much damage as turbulent economic conditions. Its the Yanks having a ***** fight at the top thats scaring the banks away not any credit crunch.

Rugby is slightly different as many clubs depend on straight investment rather than pandering to banks...unless you are Newcastle Falcons which means that your local Rugby ground is state run and owned by every rugby fan in the country and beyond. Saracens' Nigel Wray has concluded a deal for extra investment by South African businessmen and I'm sure other big owners in NH rugby are doing exactly the same. There is still cause for caution and it shows, Leicester Tiger's board agreed to only rebuild Welford Road in stages and pay for each stage in advance. That way, if things get tight, they can just not advance to the next stage and they won't have the problem of being potless with loads of angry builders standing around glaring at them for money.

As RC said, apparently Carter has agreed a 2 year "Sabbatical" where he may even be getting money from the NZRU even though he'll be playing oop' north in France or whatever. I think Chris Jack only has a two or three year deal with Sarries so relax all you in the "All Blacks! cha-cha-cha!" brigade, surprisingly, the only people who will have suffered from missing those All Blacks stars heading north for three years will have been Canterbury Crusaders fans.

And nobody likes them anyway, because they smell and have crap advertising. Not like the Hurricanes. They're named after a Cartoon series doncha know.

 

[gingergenius]

1. Losing the ability to play for my country would stop me going abroad. It's sad that money > country for them.

2. Having said that, it seems a pretty stupid rule when your 1st choice players are all heading North. I could understand if it was only the Spencers, Jacksons and Fluteys who did it.

3. If I were a Super 14 player, I'd love to have a season in the Heineken Cup to experience a different competition. Michalak's got it right - he's won everything he can in Europe; he's joined one of the best S14 teams and could win that, plus seeing a new country and rugby culture, and then he'll go back to Europe. Perhaps the respective RFUs should arrange an exchange system... McAlister comes back and Carter goes out, or something along those lines.

4. It will make SH rugby stronger, having blooded new players at top level.

5. I find it funny New Zealand are going on a grand slam tour again, when the only thing that really matters in international rugby is the World Cup. Well done, you beat Wales and Scotland (normal), well done you beat Ireland (they're **** now), well done you beat England (they're a mess).

 

[fcukernaut]

So that's a "yes", you will continue using PI's for the national side while we use 1 kiwi each in our club sides? [/b]

Why would the All Blacks stop using New Zealand citizens in their team just because they're brown skinned and of pacific island descent? Wouldn't that make it a racist regime?

 

[Bullitt]

Ah, of course, because you're a Kiwi of PI descent when you're squeezed out of your PI mommas hooch on one of the said non-EnZed PI's, only to be "adopted" between 6-16 years later to go on and play for the All Blacks...

Gotcha

 

[C A Iversen]

Smug, vague and inaccurate. What a combo.

Which player are you referring to?

 

[getofmeland]

As far as I can see, there are two sides of the arguement, the first is greed, Carter is gonna go for more money etc... The other side is well actually he wants to better himself and currently the Super 14 the great tournament it is just isn't enough for a player of the calibre on Carter...

Rugby is a game which is evolving, it is played differently in NZ to what it is in England, now there are arguments for and against who's is more enjoyable, but lets not get into that... Unfortunately tho NZ aren't allowing the Rugby to evolve... by that I mean allowing players play for in other countries and still be picked for the national side... it happens fine in Football (Soccer), so why can't it be adopted in Rugby?

 

[fcukernaut]

Rugby is a game which is evolving, it is played differently in NZ to what it is in England, now there are arguments for and against who's is more enjoyable, but lets not get into that... Unfortunately tho NZ aren't allowing the Rugby to evolve... by that I mean allowing players play for in other countries and still be picked for the national side... it happens fine in Football (Soccer), so why can't it be adopted in Rugby? [/b]

Except that soccer has evolved into a game where national allegiences are trumped by club allegiences with the exception of the WC every four years. Whether one is connected to the other, I don't know, but it is some food for thought.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

The rugby system where the club game was put behind the interests of the national unions is going to come to an end sooner or later because quite frankly its unsustainable... You can look at Ice Hockey as a prime example of this. The major international ice hockey competitions have largely taken a backdoor to the major competitions. There is absolutely no way for the unions to compete with the clubs because unlike a club which only has to pay for the players and staff under its umbrella the union has to pay for everyone and everyone involved with rugby.... Nw Zealand got a 100 mil from adidas over 10 years now you take that money and think of all the stuff a union would have to spend money on.... from the All Blacks right down to the development of grass roots rugby and u realise that there isn't a whole lot of cash around for these unions to get their hands on. Eventually you are going to end up with a situation like we have in Ice Hockey where the national unions have to cater to the clubs.... Lets take the Montreal Canadiens as an example because they are a very rich club:

100$ to see a game on avg 21,000 seat arena 82 games a season and that rink is packed every night
that is $86 million a season just from gate revenue... add in corporate boxes and sponsorship to that equation.... tv revenue.... merchandising etc and you are talking in the hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenue. The NHL salary cap this season is 50.3 million dollars with the top players earning around 9 to 10 million dollars just in salary... factor in endorsements etc and u are talking about a shitload of cash.... the national unions will never be able to compete its a fact of life. The unions need to get on board with the clubs if they wanna keep the international game viable because the clubs can exist without the unions but without the clubs the unions will loose out.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotemain'>
But some sports franchises are in trouble from the credit crunch - like Liverpool FC - these guys borrow big to pay big, and their lenders can screw them very quickly. Plus a recession will drain advertising revenue.
[/b]

Thats completely different.

First, Liverpool FC is not a franchise. The many NFL and NHL teams are franchises, with the owners being given permission to operate them by a central body in return for money. Liverpool FC and Chelsea FC are private limited companies, run as a business by a board in the interest of its shareholders. Two completely different things. Simple GCSE Business Studies.[/b][/quote]
Sorry, dude - zero difference. All serious assets are committed to the lender, except maybe the brand. Lender withdraws credit line, business becomes insolvent, assets seized, stars go away, fans grumble, brand goes in to ... hibernation. Fans return years later with pathetic buyout attempt, and former management (dressed in dayglo suits) steps in with irresistible, bargain-basement offer - "good for the people" - and the lender gets its arse covered.

A cock up like Liverpool FC could have happened in the credit crunch, the middle of the dot com boom, the 1929 Wall Street Crash or even the South Sea Bubble crash. Two guys with wildly optimistic expectations bouyed by big fat payments from their American sports franchises, buy a football team/company and burden it with hundreds of millions of pounds worth of debt and then some more when they try and get a stadium built on credit too.[/b]

Substitute "debt raised on the promise of Russian oil revenues", along with the name "Abramovich"?

Look at Glazier and Manchester United. Same strategy except they've let Fergie and the day to day management team get on with it. The result, bumper results mean bumper television money which offsets advertising any day. Business Partners falling out can cause as much damage as turbulent economic conditions. Its the Yanks having a ***** fight at the top thats scaring the banks away not any credit crunch.
[/b]

TV money is advertising money - same thing. And I hope you and yours haven't invested in real estate recently: the Yanks were having a ***** fight about that until eighteen months ago.

Rugby is slightly different as many clubs depend on straight investment rather than pandering to banks...unless you are Newcastle Falcons which means that your local Rugby ground is state run and owned by every rugby fan in the country and beyond.[/b]

Northern Rock? I hope they don't run everything in the North like that.

 

[noikz]

<div class='quotemain'> The irony that New Zealand for years were poaching Pacific Islanders and claiming it was fine... [/b]

Throw away comment. Always fallen back on by the clever people in the North who are sooo clever they never string any evidence together, lol!

We do not pick any players from any of the pacific nation's national development programs, age-grades or national sides. If any of those unions had a Super 14 club or any professional competition, we'd be the first nation with our hands up to the IRB to regulate this world-wide so England, France, Australia and ourselves don't destroy them.

The poaching from the Northern Hemisphere will be addressed with regulation in the next 4-5 years (it hasn't quite reached crisis point yet), I completely believe it'll have to be though.

As for the comments from others. How come when we have a $100million dollar deal with adidas we can't compete with clubs with a 10,000-15,000 attendance? That's blind fools logic! That money isn't annual or bi-annual. I believe the deal was for 10 years! The actual figure it's worth after taxes is about $6 million dollars a year. To maintain the All Blacks. We can't pay 5 Super 14 clubs with that! New Zealand is far from being the rich rugby nation!

The NH club of 10,000-15,000 fanbase is only shooting for about one of our players. What about all the clubs with 20,000-30,000? There's more than a few of those. There are also those in the North whose local economies are bigger than our whole countries with more people in one city.

We are talking about a multitude of ridiculously disproportionate economies going after the players from one relatively small one! The population over here is only 4 million, the ability to generate enough money to keep fighting this is not infinite.

The national sides from the north will be kicking our All Black behinds all over the place in 4-5 years and laughing at how "weak the fabled All Blacks" are and how big and heroic they are.

If you guys want to justify playing the All Blacks "C" or maybe even "D" team in 5 years to win, then you go on, you big brave tough-guy northerners!

Hand us the biggest and most realistic excuse possible! :lol: [/b][/quote]



The NZ$100m was over 5 years and that merely just a kit deal and I only mentioned it as just one nugget of revenue. I know the NZ$ is weak but when it's 100m of them it's still a lot of money.



I'd like to see the clubs who regularly get 30,000 for a league match in the Magners too.

 

[rodri_arg91]

The thing is that there's a lot of money in the Eurpean rugby. I personally believe that the Southern Hemisphere ( talking about the super 14, and the tournamentes from Australia, NZ and SA) has a higher and more competitive level of rugby than the European tournaments... Despite this I love and prefer to watch English or French rugby...
Some players like Michalak prefer to play in the Southern Hemisphere to increase their skills and grow as rugby players. Others maybe prefer to get better contracts in Europe, and I respect their choice. Why not?

In our case, all the good players in Argentina move to Europe, since we don't have a professional structure here, we are amateurs (and proud to be amateurs) and as a consequence, the level of the local torurnaments is very low in comparison to the rest of the top 10 nations.

 

[BLR]

4. It will make SH rugby stronger, having blooded new players at top level.

5. I find it funny New Zealand are going on a grand slam tour again, when the only thing that really matters in international rugby is the World Cup. Well done, you beat Wales and Scotland (normal), well done you beat Ireland (they're **** now), well done you beat England (they're a mess).
[/b]

4. So apparently the NH has the superior competition then? Hate to burst your bubble but Super 14 is on the top level.

5.Yeah alright, so let's shut up shop for four years and rustle up a team come World Cup team and have a run at it...tours ARE rugby, go watch football if you want to watch games which mean nothing...theams sending second string teams are already de-valuing rugby, it's about time it changed...

 

[paretrooper]

that realy makes me laugh when the "you poach PI's" **** comes dribbling out of the NH
becouse most "PI's" that come to play in NZ can't even make the top % of NZ rugby
and play in the 2nd and more so 3rd divison teams and have to work for a liveing.
of the top % of islanders who are good enough to play top grade rugby most are born here
or have lived here for quite awhile. they come here to better there rugby then go home
to play for there own country.

 

[C A Iversen]

Of course Paretooper you'll have to remember, some of these guys are desperately clinging onto this "poaching PI" myth as they need it to make themselves feel better about the absolute FACT of having the worlds foremost poaching scouts. They have a large number of "PI's" playing in both France and England anyway.

Why do they do it? Cause 90% of the developing players from both countries couldn't make a SH high school team !