Heavyweights want bigger slice of Cup pie

[smartcooky]

From the NZ Herald earlier this month

[TEXTAREA]Major rugby nations will begin their assault on the IRB's coffers this month when they try to arrange a massive compensation package to be paid out in World Cup years.

The 10 Tier One Nations - Tri Nations, Six Nations and Argentina - estimate that, by not playing June or November tests, they incur combined losses of close to $100 million in World Cup years. The Sanzar nations are harder hit as they have to truncate the Tri Nations every four years, further reducing their gate income.

The New Zealand Rugby Union believes it loses about $12 million in World Cup years which is why it is supporting a Sanzar proposal to push back the Cup a month to an October-November window from 2015.


The major unions voted in 2005 to lock the World Cup, from 2007 on, into a September-October window. However, by holding that position in the calendar, the World Cup has compromised the ability of the Sanzar countries to play a full Four Nations (including Argentina).
[/TEXTAREA]


Last night's TV News also said the NZRU were going to go after some revenue sharing with the European Rugby Unions, and possibly refuse to tour the NH if they don't get it.

I say its about time. Since annual EOYT/Autumn Internationals were being held, these unions have been making a packet from All Black test matches in the NH. Time we had a slice of that particular pie.

 

[Teh Mite]

I hope they all have a big arguement and refuse to tour each other. Maybe it won't be the same old stale fixtures year after year then.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I say its about time. Since annual EOYT/Autumn Internationals were being held, these unions have been making a packet from All Black test matches in the NH. Time we had a slice of that particular pie.

Do we get part of the money during the June tours then?

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

I'd say the answer the the NZRU will get will be something akin to "f*** off".

Don't want to tour here? Fine. The 6 Nations will refuse to tour New Zealand. NZ can play Australia and South Africa five times each per year and watch your brand suffer. In the meantime European clubs will continue to pillage your players and NZ won't have the finances to stop it happening.

 

[Feicarsinn]

TBH, commercially we need the All Blacks less than they need us. Argentina, Australia and South Africa are all enough big draws and I'd reckon that after a year or two the AB's would fold. They don't have the financial clout to go head to head with the likes of the RFU and FFR on matters like this. They get the SH tour money, we get the NH tour money. Fair enough

 

[Melhor Time]

TBH, commercially we need the All Blacks less than they need us. Argentina, Australia and South Africa are all enough big draws and I'd reckon that after a year or two the AB's would fold. They don't have the financial clout to go head to head with the likes of the RFU and FFR on matters like this. They get the SH tour money, we get the NH tour money. Fair enough

Big fish in a small bond mentality.

NZ play in Cardiff every year excluding RWC´s for one reason - they get a pay packet of 1 million for the match. Game goes for games at Twickenham. Hence organizing extra tour matches every year to these places but never ever playing a game in a close country like Fiji.

This also explains why Argentina have not played New Zealand at all since France 2007 and Australia at all in 8 years. NZ should play in FIiji and Samoa and not organize tests like the mid-winter ones they have done since 2007 in which the Islanders are severely understrength. It all sends a message... as does NZ and Australia playing in Hong Kong or Tokyo while neither play in Fiji or Argentina - two Quarter Finalists from 2007 unlike Wales and Ireland.

Message for NZ... what goes around comes around. Treating the likes of little Fiji badly does not mean you can then cry to the big nations like England and France. They don´t need the All Blacks. France can pack Nantes for France vs Fiji.

 

[LittleGuy]

I would LOVE to see the world cup moved back to October-November for my own greedy selfish reasons, finally a World Cup not in the middle of my harvest!!! I can actually attend!!!!

 

[kovana]

The New Zealand Rugby Union believes it loses about $12 million in World Cup years

So much do they lose in NON RWC years?

Jeez.. Get their house in order.. First.. Revamp the NPC.. Its hemorrhaging money like Roids.

 

[ranger]

Do we get part of the money during the June tours then?

Sure, hell they can have all the June tour money if they want. Tiny population + fewer games + largely "B" sides sent down here = **** all money raised.

Greedy NZ at it again.

NZ play in Cardiff every year excluding RWC´s for one reason - they get a pay packet of 1 million for the match. Game goes for games at Twickenham. Hence organizing extra tour matches every year to these places but never ever playing a game in a close country like Fiji.

This also explains why Argentina have not played New Zealand at all since France 2007 and Australia at all in 8 years.

Message for NZ... what goes around comes around. Treating the likes of little Fiji badly does not mean you can then cry to the big nations like England and France. They don´t need the All Blacks.France can pack Nantes for France vs Fiji.

What?

1) The NZRU doesn't have nearly the amount of money you seem to think it does. The ITM cup alone loses a truckload of money every year, those tour games are sorely needed to get out of the red. Its not greed driving those moves its neccessity!
Where is this money going to come from to take tests to Fiji and Samoa? Just because they are a good rugby team does not mean the countries economy suddenly improves.

2)Get your facts straight about the Fiji situation. The Fijian union are the ones who traditionally ask for their games to be played in NZ. In the past, after the costs of the match are covered, Fiji gets all the money raised from the NZ-Fiji tests. The Fijian officials realise that more money is raised by playing in Albany than Suva so they ask for the game to be played there. How is that treating Fiji badly?

 

[kovana]

The ITM cup alone loses a truckload of money every year,

Its been a problem for quite a number of years.

Really.. Something has to be done about it... An idea is of course getting rid of the Super Rugby teams of NZ altogether (which would make huge savings as well).. and just stick with the Provincial teams with a Promotion/relegation system for entry into the Super Rugby competition...

Easily kills 2 birds with one stone.....It gets rid of an extra expense (the franchises) and raises the importance of the NPC competition. It can also be done with the Saffas and their Currie Cup teams...

 

[ranger]

Its been a problem for quite a number of years.

Really.. Something has to be done about it... An idea is of course getting rid of the Super Rugby teams of NZ altogether (which would make huge savings as well).. and just stick with the Provincial teams with a Promotion/relegation system for entry into the Super Rugby competition...

Easily kills 2 birds with one stone.....It gets rid of an extra expense (the franchises) and raises the importance of the NPC competition. It can also be done with the Saffas and their Currie Cup teams...

Its an idea that has some merit, but there are too many problems.
First off there is the glaring problem that world class players in the teams that dont qualify won't be able to play Super Rugby. A system where you have a load of your top players not playing in the top competition is flawed. In cases where the NZRU are playing players a huge salary, it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to just play the ITM cup and then have a bit of a holiday. Top players in teams that don't make it would also be much more likely to leave.
That leads to the next problem, to ensure that they get to play super 14 rugby "super" teams would form. All the top players would stack a couple of teams, rendering the promotion/relegation system useless. This also severely punishes loyal players like Aaron Cruden who stick around in weaker teams. The salary cap doesn't work in NZ either, because some of the unions are so much poorer than the others that the cap would have to be very low to let them compete. Low cap= low salaries, low salaries= exodus of players to higher paying competitions.

The system of getting all the nations best performed players and putting them in 5 sides is the best way sorting out Super Rugby. I honestly think that the best way to deal with the ITM cup situation is to just take it on the chin. Sure its losing money but the benefits it gives in raising player depth and garnering fan support are well worth it.

 

[kovana]

Cheers for the reply.

Yes.. Thats something that will happen.. With the best players again most likely just moving to the Auckland and Canterbury regions to play there.

I guess you could have the international 'Super Rugby' Comp running ALONGSIDE the NPC Domestic comp... Much how its done with the Heineken Cup/Amlin Cups which run alongside with the respective domestic comps of England and France etc.

Or maybe get a 2nd international 'Super league' comp running for the teams that dont make the top flight.. BUT im more or less leaning with the Option of the SR Comp running alongside the NPC.

 

[Shaggy]

At the risk of fueling this North V South stuff, I will comment as I don't want Ranger to seem "The Lone Ranger" on this

Do we get part of the money during the June tours then?

It seems fair, both teams contribute to the entertainment, so sure, why not

I'd say the answer the the NZRU will get will be something akin to "f*** off".

Don't want to tour here? Fine. The 6 Nations will refuse to tour New Zealand. NZ can play Australia and South Africa five times each per year and watch your brand suffer. In the meantime European clubs will continue to pillage your players and NZ won't have the finances to stop it happening.

I think the answer that the NZRU gets might be determined by if they stand alone on this issue, i'm pretty sure that Australia, South Africa, the Pacific Island nations, and Argentina might all like a slice of the pie too. It sounds like the big ten also want compensation for losses in World cup year from the IRB too - I can't see the six nations getting it without some show of solidarity with the SANZAR nations and Argentina.

As for the Six Nations not touring - the All Blacks, Springboks, and Wallabies tour every year with a full strength side and play at least four of the six nations sides. When a six nations side tours, often the side isn't a full strength (Ireland and Wales notable exceptions) and they'll play two or three test matches ... equitable? ... I don't think so

TBH, commercially we need the All Blacks less than they need us. Argentina, Australia and South Africa are all enough big draws and I'd reckon that after a year or two the AB's would fold. They don't have the financial clout to go head to head with the likes of the RFU and FFR on matters like this. They get the SH tour money, we get the NH tour money. Fair enough

Like I said above, I doubt that we'll stand alone on this issue, and if the last end of year tour was anything to go by, it was the All Black games that were the consistent sell outs, not the other games

Correct, NZ doesn't have the financial clout to take on the RFU and FFR alone, but they do have the brand, and the ability to put bums on seats and up TV ratings ... if a team contributes to half of the contest, sharing half the profits seems "Fair Enough"

 

[Teh Mite]

If they want half of the profits, maybe they should pay half of the costs involved - Maintenance of facilities, ticket arrangement/distribution, wages of ground staff etc.

If they're providing half of what's going on, of course.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Where's the idea that NH teams don't send full strength teams?
If players are missing it's often because they're getting treatment/having surgery during the offseason

The England team that played Australia was the team that played the Autumn Internationals and the six nations too (bar injuries/Tim Payne)

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I'd say the answer the the NZRU will get will be something akin to "f*** off".

Don't want to tour here? Fine. The 6 Nations will refuse to tour New Zealand. NZ can play Australia and South Africa five times each per year and watch your brand suffer. In the meantime European clubs will continue to pillage your players and NZ won't have the finances to stop it happening.

Of course, this quickly became about New Zealand only, after the article talked about a situation involving the Tri-Nations and Argentina. Also, the answer will not be "F*** Off" as you suggest, that's making the language likely to be used an inflamed example of your own attitude, the Northern Hemisphere nations will likely argue their case and their will be a ruling one way or the other.

Big fish in a small bond mentality.

NZ play in Cardiff every year excluding RWC´s for one reason - they get a pay packet of 1 million for the match. Game goes for games at Twickenham. Hence organizing extra tour matches every year to these places but never ever playing a game in a close country like Fiji.

This also explains why Argentina have not played New Zealand at all since France 2007 and Australia at all in 8 years. NZ should play in FIiji and Samoa and not organize tests like the mid-winter ones they have done since 2007 in which the Islanders are severely understrength. It all sends a message... as does NZ and Australia playing in Hong Kong or Tokyo while neither play in Fiji or Argentina - two Quarter Finalists from 2007 unlike Wales and Ireland.

Message for NZ... what goes around comes around. Treating the likes of little Fiji badly does not mean you can then cry to the big nations like England and France. They don´t need the All Blacks. France can pack Nantes for France vs Fiji.

As Ranger has pointed out, you don't know what your talking about. The NZRFU loses a lot of money each year trying to retain players and keep their competitions going. Of course they have to go after good paying End Of Year games.

As for Argentina, many of their players have been unavailable for our Winter tests, and there is no deliberate attempt to deny them games in New Zealand. For New Zealand to play over there in the crowded schedule of rugby as it currently stands it's not easily organised for either team.

How have New Zealand sought to deliberately make Fiji, Samoa and Tonga under-strength? Far more of their international players are playing in the Northern Hemipshere than here.

As for Hong Kong? Of course it sends a message, it sends a message of two Rugby Unions (New Zealand and Australia - although your letting them off the hook largely), that in New Zealands case, are so low on funds (actually debt) that they have to try and play places that will make money.

New Zealand does not treat Fiji badly, you build a weak and angry case. I'm sure France will pack Nantes for France Vs Fiji every couple of years. I'm sure the locals wouldn't eventually get sick of that.



What's all this bashing New Zealand alone about here? Is there no greater villain in World Sport? I know we sit here on piles of money and taking every already talented and well developed island player from their cots, but come on, this article was about a group of nations.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Of course, this quickly became about New Zealand only, after the article talked about a situation involving the Tri-Nations and Argentina.

I presume everyone's on about this part:

Last night's TV News also said the NZRU were going to go after some revenue sharing with the European Rugby Unions, and possibly refuse to tour the NH if they don't get it.

I say its about time. Since annual EOYT/Autumn Internationals were being held, these unions have been making a packet from All Black test matches in the NH. Time we had a slice of that particular pie.

 

[Logorrhea]

I'd say the answer the the NZRU will get will be something akin to "f*** off".

Don't want to tour here? Fine. The 6 Nations will refuse to tour New Zealand. NZ can play Australia and South Africa five times each per year and watch your brand suffer. In the meantime European clubs will continue to pillage your players and NZ won't have the finances to stop it happening.

Unfortunately I reckin this is what'll happen if push comes to shove.

 

[Shaggy]

If they want half of the profits, maybe they should pay half of the costs involved - Maintenance of facilities, ticket arrangement/distribution, wages of ground staff etc.

If they're providing half of what's going on, of course.

I don't know how much they are asking for ... I was talking half, but it's probably a lot less than that - regardless, either way, we are talking profits, ie revenue less costs, so yes, costs would be taken out first

 

[smartcooky]

Do we get part of the money during the June tours then?

I think you will find we would gladly swap a share of the Twickeham gate with a proportionate share of the Cake Tin Gate.

For years we have had to sell our tickets cheaply because the public have known that, particularly England and France, have consistently sent "B" teams here. The Crowd want to see a contest, not hidings of sub standard teams full of boys sent to to a man's job.

The last time the French toured Australia with a "B" team, the Aussies could not fill their stadia, and had to heavily discount tickets in order to get a decent crowd there. The result was that they missed out on just over AU$5 million in ticket sales.