I think u have very high standards if you think a rectangular rugby specific stadium is not excellent.
SdF I'd agree if you have a cheap seat.
I've got to agree with Old Hooker. I hate Twickenham with a passion. It serves its purpose well from the RFU's point of view - it's a cash cow, as you rightly say, this leaves real rugby fans in a minority surrounded by people having a day out with a rugby sideshow, ruining the atmosphere. Unless you sell a kidney, the views, even from the second tier (of three) are so poor, that I struggled to discern who was who in the last game I watched there. The steps up to the seats are a health hazard, particularly once a few plastic glasses get thrown on them and it's barley possible for anyone who ever played second row to fit into one of the seats. On top of this, if you fancy a beer, get ready to sell your other kidney, although it wouldn't be advised as it's terrible and might force you to use the toilets which are totally inadequately maintained.
I've toured the Millennium (or whatever it's called these days) but didn't watch a game there. However I was struck by how much more leg room you get and how much closer to the pitch you are. If the WRU were able to complete the north stand, it would be there or thereabouts with Twickenham capacity wise.
Considering the amount of money you're spending to be there I don't see why we should accept that any patch of grass that's primarily a rugby stadium is excellent.
- - - Updated - - -
BTW. I actually understand Ritchie's point on this. The RFU don't really need the money. It's kind of surprising they're even in the business of out of window tests.
I imagine that the RFU would agrue that they need all the money they can get their hands on as it will be reinvested in the game for the rewards to be reaped further down the line.
I also doubt Ritchie thinks 75% is an incontestable red line for them, and I reckon NZRU proposed 50% as a starting point in negotiations, thinking it would come down to something like 60-40.
This is the crux. As I said on the original thread, the RFU will have other irons in the fire and have an idea of how profitable they would be, so will have a floor. Same for the NZRU. It would be a shame to see this match replaced by both sides playing lesser opposition, but hey, welcome to professional rugby.
- - - Updated - - -
One final, final thing.
The RFU are about to embark on another upgrade of Twicksnham. The oldest part of what is now an excellent stadium is just 25 years.
Why? Seems a never ending self feeding cycle.
Is the RFU run for the Twickenham debenture holders? Why not divert that money into grass roots? Or elite rugby? Get it into schools?
I'm pretty sure that any investment made into Twickenham Stadium is made on the basis that it will show a return in a reasonable time frame.
As for the grass roots question, it posters here were more interested in the politics of the game, we would already have an uber thread (if not a whole forum) running the RFU down for many, many reasons. IIRC, profits are well up (thanks in no small part to the World Cup), funding for the professional game is up, pension contributions and staff costs at HQ are well up, but investment in the "community game" (tier three and down) is down. The RFU claim that this is because the constituent bodies are failing to apply for money that is available to them. If this is the case, a massive overhaul of the way that the RFU is structured is needed, but hasn't this been the case since the old farts comment or before?
