English clubs threaten USA - All Blacks in Chicago

[Shaggy]

Sorry mate I don't understand your first point... Which test window are you talking about?

Re: S15. Only one of the games that weekend is inter country... Force vs Blues. Everything else is NZ v NZ or As vs As so unaffected. One provincial game vs a Test match which you all keep saying is the priority.

Each country takes it in turn to start early, last year Australia, this year SA, next year NZ.

And essentially what your saying is "sod the international game cos we're alright, we'll play a weak side because it suits us."

So NZ put the international game first when it suits them but not when it would mean a good meaningful test series.

No worse than PRL sticking to the rest window is it?

Okay mate, I could have this wrong (it's happened before, it will happen again), the first June test ABs V England falls within the test window, yes? ... the England players involved in the club final will be a no show for this fixture because of the scheduling conflict ... I'm not advocating that these players must be made available for test duty, but technically, S.Lancaster is accommodating the clubs, and the NZRU would bear the cost, if any, due to the best team not being sent. It seems to me that if a mature decision can be made to accommodate the clubs (in this instance), perhaps the clubs can show some goodwill and release the US players for a week also.

Re: Super Rugby ... it's largely irrelevant how many games are inter country, just so long as there's at least one, because if you are going to reschedule you still have to involve the other parties (Australia, the broadcast partners) in the decision process. So it's not a case of NZRU and the English union coming to an agreement.


As for the comments regard "Sod the ..." etc, if we are still referring to the England, I love to see a full strength test side for the whole series. Test rugby is the pinnacle of the sport for NZ fans, and they want to see the very best sides tour/play, it's also one of the revenue stream that the NZRU rely on to remain solvent, so all NZ parties want a full strength side, but not if it's going to disadvantage the All Blacks. The AVIVA premiership final is Scheduled May 31, and the first test is scheduled for June 7, the England players involved in the final could technically play in the first test, but is it reasonable for them to do so with out adequate rest and a chance for them to train with the England squad? of course not, but it's no worse than your suggestion that the All Blacks fore go their rest week before the first test.

As for the staggered start in Super Rugby, it was put in place to accommodate the Lions tour of Australia last year, and South Africa are using it this year - is it a formal arrangement that it will occur every year (I don't know, I'm asking)?

To address your point about "NZ putting the international game first when it suits them" ... absolutely, the NZRU are about what's best for NZ Rugby first and foremost (just like any other rugby union or club), they have to look after their revenue streams (play the USA outside of the international window, accommodating the Super Rugby broadcasters), and look after their players (adequate time for rest and training as a squad before internationals). They may have released other international players from the Super Sides outside of the international window before ... I'd have to check the likes of Mo Schwalger, Jack Lam etc ... I know the Crusaders released a Fijian winger one year for the Wellington Sevens, and Fiji won, but yes NZRU are by in large, about what's best for NZ Rugby.

Your point about one body being no worst than another is largely true, as they do have their best interests at heart, although a little comprise goes a long way.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread (using NZ v USA as an example), it doesn't have to be a one-sided gain/all parties can gain.

 

[j'nuh]

Okay mate, I could have this wrong (it's happened before, it will happen again), the first June test ABs V England falls within the test window, yes? ... the England players involved in the club final will be a no show for this fixture because of the scheduling conflict ... I'm not advocating that these players must be made available for test duty, but technically, S.Lancaster is accommodating the clubs, and the NZRU would bear the cost, if any, due to the best team not being sent. It seems to me that if a mature decision can be made to accommodate the clubs (in this instance), perhaps the clubs can show some goodwill and release the US players for a week also.

The final happens 31st May and the international window starts 1st June. The final is inside the domestic calendar, so Lancaster has no say in who gets to play in the final. He certainly isn't accommodating the clubs. Players are technically available for the first game, it's just that they won't have trained enough with the squad to be seriously considered. (Whether Lancaster might consider rushing one or two key players back is another matter.) The fault here lies with the organisers of the international game, who should have been aware that it's regular for the Premiership final to occur late in May. Every game should have been pushed back to allow for those in the final to have trained with the squad. Clubs from the Aviva Premiership don't owe the international game anything for this.

 

[Shaggy]

The final happens 31st May and the international window starts 1st June. The final is inside the domestic calendar, so Lancaster has no say in who gets to play in the final. He certainly isn't accommodating the clubs. Players are technically available for the first game, it's just that they won't have trained enough with the squad to be seriously considered. (Whether Lancaster might consider rushing one or two key players back is another matter.) The fault here lies with the organisers of the international game, who should have been aware that it's regular for the Premiership final to occur late in May. Every game should have been pushed back to allow for those in the final to have trained with the squad. Clubs from the Aviva Premiership don't owe the international game anything for this.

I realise that the 31st of May is one day outside of the international window ... yes, the international game organisers are aware that the Aviva finishes late May ... and conversely, the organisers of the Aviva premership are well aware of when the international windows are, so they could just as easily have scheduled their finals for the 24th May (which is still late May) ... so it's not clear at all who is at fault here (can be argued both ways). I realise that Lancaster has no say in who plays in the final because it falls outside of the international window by one day, and that he can technically rush players in if he wants to, but that's hardly good for the player welfare, is it?

By scheduling the final one day before the international window opens, it could be argued that they aren't making players available for the window, because the players aren't in a fit state to play. Yes, there's no rule to say that the Aviva organisers can't play their final the day before the window opens, but it's not in the spirit of what the international window is all about, and that is to make ALL players available for the international window.

Just to reiterate, I am total for the best side touring/playing all matches, and the NZRU wants that too, I'm sure ... however, neither the NZRU or myself have any pull when it comes to England's selection or player availability. That's between the English Rugby Union and the clubs. The English Rugby union agreed to both the international schedule and the club schedule, so I guess they are the most likely candidate for assigning blame, as they are the common denominator in both negotiations.

 

[goodNumber10]

I realise that the 31st of May is one day outside of the international window ... yes, the international game organisers are aware that the Aviva finishes late May ... and conversely, the organisers of the Aviva premership are well aware of when the international windows are, so they could just as easily have scheduled their finals for the 24th May (which is still late May) ... so it's not clear at all who is at fault here (can be argued both ways). I realise that Lancaster has no say in who plays in the final because it falls outside of the international window by one day, and that he can technically rush players in if he wants to, but that's hardly good for the player welfare, is it?

By scheduling the final one day before the international window opens, it could be argued that they aren't making players available for the window, because the players aren't in a fit state to play. Yes, there's no rule to say that the Aviva organisers can't play their final the day before the window opens, but it's not in the spirit of what the international window is all about, and that is to make ALL players available for the international window.

Just to reiterate, I am total for the best side touring/playing all matches, and the NZRU wants that too, I'm sure ... however, neither the NZRU or myself have any pull when it comes to England's selection or player availability. That's between the English Rugby Union and the clubs. The English Rugby union agreed to both the international schedule and the club schedule, so I guess they are the most likely candidate for assigning blame, as they are the common denominator in both negotiations.

The Aviva Premiership final is ALWAYS the last weekend of May, and was set that way before the tour was agreed which was in 2010. IRB set the new touring schedule in 2012 - the dates changed, and New Zealand have refused to accommodate.

The players must have a mandatory weeks rest/stand down/Travel time after the season again New Zealand are refusing to observe this, their opinion is it's not their problem.

 

[goodNumber10]

I was under the impression that RWC Qualifiers create their own "window".
We released Kulemin and Ostrikov to play for Russia in their qualifiers, and Saints released Manoa, and the PRL didn't make a sound so I presume that it's all above board.

Exactly, all IRB tournaments fall within a statutory test window. Because it doesn't align with the tier one test windows doesn't mean it's not in a test window.

 

[smartcooky]

The Aviva Premiership final is ALWAYS the last weekend of May....

Before you make a statement of fact, make sure it actually is a fact!!!

PRE PLAYOFFS - LAST MATCH LISTED
1998 - 25 May
1999 - 20 May
2000 - 21 May
2001 - 16 April
2002 - 12 May
2003 - 31 May

FINALS
2004 - 29 May
2005 - 14 May
2006 - 27 May
2007 - 12 May
2008 - 31 May
2009 - 16 May
2010 - 29 May
2011 - 28 May
2012 - 26 May
2013 - 25 May
2014 - 31 May

"Always" is incorrect. Frequently would be more accurate

 

[goodNumber10]

Lol! My facts are straight, and you should read the whole sentence instead of letting your rage take over and cherry picking parts of it.

the whole sentance being:

The Aviva Premiership final is ALWAYS the last weekend of May, and was set that way before the tour was agreed which was in 2010.

Aviva took over the sponsorship in 2010 for the 2010-2011 season - so the AVIVA Premiership is always the last weekend in May.

2011 - 28 May
2012 - 26 May
2013 - 25 May
2014 - 31 May

And will do so through the current agreement.

Regardelss, you can clearly see that it is the norm to have it on the last weekend of May, and the dates for this period were set before the IRB window was agreed which was in 2012.

Time to block you i think.

 

[goodNumber10]

Not sure where you've got your facts from on this. The opening weekends to the PNC last year were outside the release window.

Lions tours, along with World Cups are designated by the IRB as special events where the release period can be altered. Hence why the World Cup is still in a release window for those involved even though it was played in September/October.

RWC qualifiers are also given special exemption by IRB, hence why USA managed to field their best team against Uruguay for instance on a date outside the usual release windows.

In RWC year there is no November test window, the window is moved and extended to accomodate the World Cup. There is no special exemption, the window is at a different period - hence the problems with the fijian players in the Top 14.

 

[smartcooky]

Lol! My facts are straight, and you should read the whole sentence instead of letting your rage take over and cherry picking parts of it.

the whole sentance being:


Aviva took over the sponsorship in 2010 for the 2010-2011 season - so the AVIVA Premiership is always the last weekend in May.

2011 - 28 May
2012 - 26 May
2013 - 25 May
2014 - 31 May

And will do so through the current agreement.

Regardelss, you can clearly see that it is the norm to have it on the last weekend of May, and the dates for this period were set before the IRB window was agreed which was in 2012.

Oh, you aren't really going to hang your hat on a sponsor's name are you? Its the SAME COMPETITON Just a different company fronting up with the dosh!!

I mean, you seriously cannot be suggesting that football's Barclay's Premier League is a different competition from the Barclaycard Premiership or the Carling Premiership before that?

Time to block you i think.

Cant hack it eh? Don't have the skills to debate me while keeping your points factually accurate!?

No problem. I won't lose any sleep!

 

[goodNumber10]

Oh, you aren't really going to hang your hat on a sponsor's name are you? Its the SAME COMPETITON Just a different company fronting up with the dosh!!

I mean, you seriously cannot be suggesting that football's Barclay's Premier League is a different competition from the Barclaycard Premiership or the Carling Premiership before that?

No, the point is when the agreement was made, which was when Aviva took over the rights - the timing is agreed then so Aviva can promote it etc...

Cant hack it eh? Don't have the skills to debate me while keeping your points factually accurate!?

No problem. I won't lose any sleep!

Nice one. take care.

 

[Shaggy]

The Aviva Premiership final is ALWAYS the last weekend of May, and was set that way before the tour was agreed which was in 2010. IRB set the new touring schedule in 2012 - the dates changed, and New Zealand have refused to accommodate.

The players must have a mandatory weeks rest/stand down/Travel time after the season again New Zealand are refusing to observe this, their opinion is it's not their problem.

... and so the IRB set the new new touring schedule ... seems like your beef should be with the IRB then ... as the Aviva Premiership just involves the English clubs (as opposed to Super Rugby which involves Three nations), and it effects the English team, surely English Rugby could adapt/ make changes, much like Super Rugby did with the Lions tour of Australia. Just because the Aviva Championship has been going for a whole Four Years, and has always played its finals on the last weekend of May, doesn't mean that it always has to happen that way. This is English players playing in an English league, where a conflict has been known about for two years, and a compromise can't be reached between the English clubs and the English Union.

I find it hard to believe that IRB made any schedule changes without consulting the RFU or getting their agreement.

As for the player rest issue, New Zealand aren't telling your guys they must play or selecting the English team, so they aren't refusing to observe this ... in fact they have their schedule set to ensure the players they are responsible for (NZ players), are getting their rest week before the tests.

I don't understand why it's so difficult for schedule changes can't be made in England to accommodate England, when that's exactly what you seem to expect New Zealand to do with it's domestic Schedule.

... and yes, that's correct ... at the end of the day New Zealand player availability is the NZRU's problem, and English player availability is the RFU's ... while I'm sure the NZRU would help if it doesn't effect their players well being or revenue streams, they aren't going to do it to their detriment.

It seems it's an issues for the RFU and the English clubs to sort out

 

[ratsapprentice]

The problem is that the wording of the new international window agreement (from 2012) allowed for a degree of interpretation.
The RFU and NZRFU do not interpret "the first weekend of June" in the same way.
Although I can see how the NZRFU have interpreted it the way they have - I think that way is mental, frankly.

The Premiership isn't played in isolation either - it is scheduled around the HEC - so it's no easier to move it back a week than it is to move SR a week.
In fact it's harder to move because you have clubs playing in more than one competition, whereas SR franchises only play in SR.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

How are we supposed to have moved the final anyway? There are no rest weekends during the year to shorten everything - there's the LV and Euro rugby taking up all that time.
Suppose you could cut in to the previous years pre-season, but that's no ideal considering the Lions Tour, International Tours, Club 7s and general player welfare.

 

[Shaggy]

The problem is that wording of the new international window agreement (from 2012) allowed for a degree of interpretation.
The RFU and NZRFU do not interpret "the first weekend of June" in the same way.

The problem is the official definition of the start of the window.

The Premiership isn't played in isolation - it is scheduled around the HEC - so it's no easier to move it back a week than it is to move SR a week.

Well I didn't know about the interpretation problem - thanks ... maybe the IRB should clarify what it is in the strongest way possible.

I don't imagine it's a straight forward task to change the domestic schedules for either Country(s) ... just don't see that the blame should be heaped at the door of the NZRU, when there's no movement/compromise/rescheduling happening in England either.

How are we supposed to have moved the final anyway? There are no rest weekends during the year to shorten everything - there's the LV and Euro rugby taking up all that time.
Suppose you could cut in to the previous years pre-season, but that's no ideal considering the Lions Tour, International Tours, Club 7s and general player welfare.

Well, something has to give ... you could shorten the Aviva Premiership by playing less games ... the 2016 Super Rugby comp looks like it will have one less game/round, even though there will be 18 teams instead of 15

 

[ratsapprentice]

To be fair - I'm not sure how you can interpret the current definition the way the NZRFU have.
According to them June has 5 weekends!

A weekend is both Saturday and Sunday - a Sunday falling in June does not constitute a weekend.

 

[goodNumber10]

The point I'm trying to make is NZ agreed the tour dates with England in (November) 2010, this took into account the AP premiership final being played last weekend of May, the new IRB schedule was released and NZ moved the test series into that window as they were told to do by the IRB.

So yes, whilst it is a problem for the RFU to sort out, they have presented a solution to both the IRB and NZRFU and both have refuesed to accomodate the England request and in turn honour the original tour dates - IRB announced the new schedule in 2012, the RFU was in a transition stage and didn't raise an objection until last year - so yes absolutely they're in the wrong but there is a solution that is workable for all involved and NZ have said not their issue.

So, going back to the original point made by SC New Zealand don't' do things for the good of the game, they do things for the good of their own union, portraying them as the shining white nights of the Tier 2 nations is laughable.

 

[Shaggy]

To be fair - I'm not sure how (in a legal context) you can interpret the current definition the way the NZRFU have.
According to them June has 5 weekends!

A weekend is both Saturday and Sunday - a Sunday falling in June does not constitute a weekend.

Well, May certainly does this year, which has probably contributed to this scheduling mess

Does the IRB window state that they have to be complete weekends a Saturday or a Sunday isn't part of the regular working week, it's part of the weekend (not saying the NZRU are correct)... like I said, the IRB need to clarify with all of their member nations, what's in and whats out of the playing window

The point i'm trying to make is NZ agreed the tour dates with England in (November) 2010, this took into account the AP premiership final being played last weekend of May, the new IRB schedule was released and NZ moved the test series into that window as they were told to do by the IRB.

So yes, whilst it is a problem for the RFU to sort out, they have presented a solution to both the IRB and NZRFU and both have refuesed to accomodate the England request and in turn honour the original tour dates - IRB announced the new schedule in 2012, the RFU was in a transition stage and dind't raise an objection unti last year - so yes absolutely their in the wrong but there is a solution that is workable for all involved and NZ have said not their issue.

So, going back to the original point made by SC New Zealand dont' do things for the good of the game, they do things for the good of their own union, portraying them as the shining white nights of the Tier 2 nations is laughable.

Is the solution that they suggested, the one that you proposed earlier - the NZRU get most of it's money from test matches, and have traditionally relied on the quality of those test matches for their revenue, however, they also have to rely on Super Rugby, and to consider their SANZAR partners, Sponsors (the USA match), and broadcast partners. England obviously have to consider similar partners.

I've said through out this discussion that the NZRU, like any other union or club, will always look after themselves first - it has to be that way , given the small population, and comparative lack of wealth. They are only agency that can deliver what's best for New Zealand rugby from the grass roots up, so, if the NZRU withers and dies, so does Rugby in New Zealand.

Yes, they'll do something for the Tier Two nations if it's not going to cost them too much (like releasing H.Buydens during the ITM cup) ... they certainly aren't the knights in shining armour for the tier two sides (but who is) . The main thing that the NZRU does for tier two nations is supply the island teams with players with a rugby education. I'm talking about players that have come up through the NZ school system and rugby development programmes here, but even this is a byproduct of the goal to produce future All Blacks. This is another example of what I talked about earlier, that what's good for one side, whatever the motivation, can be good for another.

 

[goodNumber10]

Well, May certainly does this year, which has probably contributed to this scheduling mess

Does the IRB window state that they have to be complete weekends a Saturday or a Sunday isn't part of the regular working week, it's part of the weekend (not saying the NZRU are correct)... like I said, the IRB need to clarify with all of their member nations, what's in and whats out of the playing window

IIRC the IRB clarified saying the 2nd weekend in June through to the last, NZ are interpreting what we call the first weekend in June as the 2nd and much hilarity ensues.



At the end of the day it's fans who get shafted again.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The definition of a "Weekend" is: Saturday and Sunday.

I have never seen a definition of Weekend as anything less than a two day period.

The June test period begins on the first weekend of June.
A Weekend begins on a Saturday - the first Saturday of June is the 7th of June.

 

[Shaggy]

IIRC the IRB clarified saying the 2nd weekend in June through to the last, NZ are interpreting what we call the first weekend in June as the 2nd and much hilarity ensues.



At the end of the day it's fans who get shafted again.

You couldn't get me to believe that's true in a month of Sund ... oh, what a minute

The definition of a "Weekend" is: Saturday and Sunday.

I have never seen a definition of Weekend as anything less than a two day period.

The June test period begins on the first weekend of June.
A Weekend begins on a Saturday - the first Saturday of June is the 7th of June.

... I could bring my considerable pull with the NZRU to bear ... but it might be easier for the IRB to sort it out