NZRFU V RFU (Tews V Ritchie)

[die_mole]

As I said above, none of us are in possession of sufficient facts to be sure. Have you got some fag packet maths to support this? If the £6m pre-tax ticket revenue is somewhere near on the money (no pun intended), the £1.5m we're talking about represents a quarter of ticket revenue. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me to imagine that ticket revenues for a match against a tier 2 nation would be less than 75% of that for a match against New Zealand. Then there's increased TV and hospitality revenues to factor in. I really don't see it as being as clear cut as you're making out.



If we were talking about a sport, I would agree wholeheartedly, but we're talking about a business! The Wellington Globetrotters does have a ring to it though! What are the chances of the Welsh coming up with a similar sum? Slim I'd have though. They have a smaller stadium than England, a poorer, smaller population and like to plead poverty themselves.

i did some **** math earlier up thread

also, an england game against a side of overseas new zealanders would be the biggest middle finger ever

 

[Which Tyler]

As I said above, none of us are in possession of sufficient facts to be sure. Have you got some fag packet maths to support this? If the £6m pre-tax ticket revenue is somewhere near on the money (no pun intended), the £1.5m we're talking about represents a quarter of ticket revenue. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me to imagine that ticket revenues for a match against a tier 2 nation would be less than 75% of that for a match against New Zealand. Then there's increased TV and hospitality revenues to factor in. I really don't see it as being as clear cut as you're making out.

2014 Twickenham atendances figures:
New Zealand, 82,223
South Africa, 82,000
Samoa, 82,076
Australia, 82,049

For ticket prices, not going to twickers I don't really know, but I'd be surprised if the price difference is much more than 25%. I'm also not claiming that it would be clear cut, I think it be more-or-less neutral to play a tier 2 nation giving them 25% and certainly not worth setting a precedent of 50% payments, or bending over every time the NZRU shows up with a tub of vaseline.

TV rights sold way in advance, not related to who we're playing, likewise hospitality and debentures.

 

[RedruthRFC]

TV rights sold way in advance, not related to who we're playing, likewise hospitality and debentures.

You're probably correct that the TV rights are sold too far in advance, but I would have thought that they would be contingent of a certain level of competition, also, lower viewing figures which could be expected from a tier 2 match will impact upon future negotiations. Debenture holders have the right to buy a ticket, they are not pre-sold. I'd be very surprised if this is the case with hospitality too, it's certainly not at the MemStad as I said above.

Impressive to see that the match against Samoa sold out, a quick Google search might give a clue as to why though - category 1 tickets were available, 2 for £50, category 2 tickets, 2 for £50 and junior tickets £10 each. Obviously not all tickets were sold at those prices, but if the struggle to sell out became apparent early on, a fair portion could have done and at a much lower price than you could expect to pick up the cheapest ticket vs New Zealand.

 

[nightmarehitter]

The All Blacks are the biggest brand in rugby, there is not even a close 2nd, It going to happen that they will begin demanding higher payments for out of test window matches. And I do believe they will get close to their demands.

If England ever want to get closer to the All Blacks they will need to play them more often - might as well charge England for the right! - I think that is pretty smart thinking.

 

[smartcooky]

I really can't understand what all the fuss is about; this is a simple business negotiation.

1. The RFU (i.e. ENGLAND) wants an additional match outside the window.
2. The RFU have approached the NZRU and asked if they are interested
3. The NZRU have named their price


and then, English posters here (and he British media) get all butt-hurt because they don't like the asking price. Well boys, its a free market; if you don't like the asking price, fack-off and find someone cheaper! Its just like anything else in life; if you can't afford the Premium product, then you have to settle for a Standard one. Simples!

Sorry but you are in the main wrong as you seem to ignore the overwhelming corporate influence in the attendance at UK tests - few of whom go to club games!

Certainly, In France, very few club supporters actually travel and/or go to Paris tests as a percentage of its attendance!

Thing is though Tony, what happens in the NH as regards fan mindset has absolutely no relevance to what happens here, and here is where any alternative match would be played. We could play four tests against Australia in New Zealand and every single one would sell out, and we could ask our own price for the television rights. What's more, if the tests were held in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin, then the attendance would be mostly by Blues, Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders fans in that order.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I really can't understand what all the fuss is about; this is a simple business negotiation.

1. The RFU (i.e. ENGLAND) wants an additional match outside the window.
2. The RFU have approached the NZRU and asked if they are interested
3. The NZRU have named their price

and then, English posters here (and he British media) get all butt-hurt because they don't like the asking price. Well boys, its a free market; if you don't like the asking price, fack-off and find someone cheaper! Its just like anything else in life; if you can't afford the Premium product, then you have to settle for a Standard one. Simples!

Lol. Seems like a very clear case of the extremely butt hurt pot calling the butt hurt kettle black. You appear to have ignored Which Tyler's point - in the business terms you seem so fond of, he contends that there are three other products of equal worth which will in all likelihood come with a lower price tag, rendering New Zealand the Rolex of the rugby world - very flash, but no better at doing its job than cheaper competitors.

Thing is though Tony, what happens in the NH as regards fan mindset has absolutely no relevance to what happens here, and here is where any alternative match would be played. We could play four tests against Australia in New Zealand and every single one would sell out, and we could ask our own price for the television rights. What's more, if the tests were held in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin, then the attendance would be mostly by Blues, Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders fans in that order.

No, this is ex post facto rationalisation because you can't stand to be told that you're wrong. When you made this statement, you listed European clubs that would be playing each other multiple times to illustrate your point. You had also listed the countries outside Australasia that apparently wish to play host to the All Blacks. Out of interest, how much would you expect to profit from a test against Australia held in Christchurch? 18,000 times the going rate for a ticket in New Zealand, presumably split 50/50 with your guests (that's only reasonable right?) doesn't strike me as very good business. Actually, given that tickets for New Zealand's home leg against Australia in this year's rugby championship are available from touts for £38, it's hard to imagine anywhere (with the possible exception of Eden Park) could compete with the crumbs already on offer from the RFU table. If I'm right, it seems like it is the NZRU that have the simple decision - agree reasonable terms or become rugby nomads playing in front of the highest bidder.

 

[Maverick1987]

The All Blacks are the biggest brand in rugby, there is not even a close 2nd, It going to happen that they will begin demanding higher payments for out of test window matches. And I do believe they will get close to their demands.

If England ever want to get closer to the All Blacks they will need to play them more often - might as well charge England for the right! - I think that is pretty smart thinking.

You might be the biggest brand in rugby but there's a reason why you are asking a ridiculous price of England rugby and it's because we have the most money and the most fans. Like I said above I hope Ritchie tells Tew to take his All Blacks elsewhere because no one and I mean NO ONE is going to pay that price irrespective to how good your team is ..... It's time World Rugby started playing hard ball with Tew in my opinion .....

 

[Immenso]

So much complete ignorance of how revenue from 'in window' v 'out of window' tests are distributed. So much ignorance I was prompted to register so I could correct you all. As the thought of someone out there on the Internet being wrong would drive me crazy.

Luckily Mumbes has already sorted you out about a page back.

Knickers in a twist about 2 CEO's not nailing a deal ..... Shakes head, that's pretty weird and obsessive ..... And then to whinge about it from a position of 100% ignorance. Oh my god, I couldn't take it!

 

[Shaggy]

Not to add too much fuel to the fire, but there's an assumption that the alternative playing partners are all going to remain static too, and accept the 25%. What happens if the other major southern hemisphere players show some solidarity here too?

But, like others have eluded to; it's essentially a business negotiation ... offer/counter offer etc.

 

[ncurd]

Not to add too much fuel to the fire, but there's an assumption that the alternative playing partners are all going to remain static too, and accept the 25%. What happens if the other major southern hemisphere players show some solidarity here too?

We don't know the whole technicalities here so it's really hard to judge what's the right point. I think it's safe to say collective bargaining would put NZ in a better position but they'll need to get the three possibly Argentina on board first. Twickers obviously has a clear break even point no matter who we play, I very much doubt playing NZ costs us any more than playing Fiji.

So here's the problem can England sell tickets for Fiji for less than they would NZ/Aus/SA but still make more money if they gave up less of the pie? After all Fiji will be willing to accept far less money as they need it far more and I very much doubt the SANZAR nations will get them on board to better their position. Remembering also the only reason NZ can attempt this is it's an out of window one-off game so normally they'd have to lump so the SANZAR team can't just say we're not playing England this year and start negotiations from there.

Some extremely quick maths
Break even 50% of tickets, average costs 100quid if NZ want 50% and Fiji want 25%, England can afford to lower prices by 25 quid and still make the same amount of cash.
Break even 75% of tickets, average costs 100quid if NZ want 50% and Fiji want 25%, England can afford to lower prices by 12.5 quid and still make the same amount of cash.
Break even 25% of tickets, average costs 100quid if NZ want 50% and Fiji want 25%, England can afford to lower prices by 37.5 quid and still make the same amount of cash.

So in those scenarios we'd probably not do too well from a bargaining situation of a high break even threshold but the lower it is the less NZ have to play with. Somehow I think NZ may have pushed it a little too far asking for 100% more.

The collective stuff works mainly if they could refuse to play all games in the window thus making it difficult for England to sell tickets for a bunch of games against minnows one game they can probably manage(can someone enlighten me if that's the case?).

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

New Zealand may dominate on the pitch but England and France dominate on the financial sheets. The problem with the current NZ setup is they think their on field dominance really matters when it comes to the business side of the sport. Sorry guys but in this area, England and France hold all the cards. NZ have a point in that they are the biggest brand and very attractive to play but they have to recognize that England has the power here. NZ keep playing hardball and they will lose a lot of revenue whereas England will almost certainly be able to find a replacement with a minimal drop in the revenue.

The thing is, this isn't an isolated incident. He has also been making threats to Wales and it all just sounds like being a brat threatening everyone from a business standpoint whilst his own union is actually losing money. He seems unaware that if everyone says no, the NZ union will go bust very quickly. NZ simply can't afford to be this confrontational with their cash cows.

 

[nickdnz]

I think England vastly over estimates what they contribute to the NZRU to be honest. We really don't need to play tests in England - especially when we can make similar amounts of money in other markets based on the strength on the ABs brand. If we can sell out arenas in Chicago - why take significantly less to play at Twickenham for the benefit of the RFU. I'm perfectly happy to boycott the NH unions who genuinely believe they own the game (as reflected by the above posts).

 

[ncurd]

Is a pay day in America the same amount as England though? Honest question I don't know the answer.

I'd assume both Twickenham and any American stadia of similar size has similar running costs. I'm not convinced the American's can charge as much for tickets, I'm also far from convinced the appetite will be there for it to succeed year in, year out especially when the American's are going to loose badly each time. Still I'm fairly certain in these markets NZ can take a bigger slice of the pie so it may even out.

The only real answer if this gets to a proper problem and effects the iternational windows of top nations playing each other is for world rugby to impose a percentage on all nations regardles of when (even out of windows) that is coompletely non-negotiable.



I don't think anyone wants this to get to the stage where England never play NZ.

 

[nickdnz]

Is a pay day in America the same amount as England though? Honest question I don't know the answer.

I'd assume both Twickenham and any American stadia of similar size has similar running costs. I'm not convinced the American's can charge as much for tickets, I'm also far from convinced the appetite will be there for it to succeed year in, year out especially when the American's are going to loose badly each time. Still I'm fairly certain in these markets NZ can take a bigger slice of the pie so it may even out.

The only real answer if this gets to a proper problem and effects the iternational windows of top nations playing each other is for world rugby to impose a percentage on all nations regardles of when (even out of windows) that is coompletely non-negotiable.



I don't think anyone wants this to get to the stage where England never play NZ.

Well remember - we split the fee with Ireland for this year. And it's not likely to be a year in year out venture either, out of window tests have been brought to Singapore, Hong Kong, USA and Japan. Really it only makes sense to go where the money is - if the well eventually dries up and somehow 25% of Twikenham gate becomes the best financial option there I'm sure they would move there. The point is that no one is entitled to an out of window ABs test, and so it's really who will pay for it.

Also it won't get to the stage where England won't play NZ. Remember the reason for this is that it is outside the international window. Inside the international window the fixtures will be drawn so we have to play each other, and I assume the home nations get to keep the gate. It's just that won't be every year as England has had.

 

[ncurd]

I think you hit the nail in the head on the arguement here.

England have gone sod 'em we can get more money of someone else. NZ fans accuse England of being salty because they didn't agree to loosing money.

NZ have fone sod 'em we can get more money of someone else. England fans accuse NZ of being salty because they didn't agree to loosing money.

The reality is England fans and NZ fans would just rather both sides played each other because at the moment its best of SH V best of NH and money be damned. However both are passionate enough to understand their nation aren't going to agree to get less money. Thus we're why out side won't accept that deal. Lets be honest would any of us care about the money side of things had they agreed to any deal to play each other?

 

[nickdnz]

I think you hit the nail in the head on the arguement here.

England have gone sod 'em we can get more money of someone else. NZ fans accuse England of being salty because they didn't agree to loosing money.

NZ have fone sod 'em we can get more money of someone else. England fans accuse NZ of being salty because they didn't agree to loosing money.

The reality is England fans and NZ fans would just rather both sides played each other because at the moment its best of SH V best of NH and money be damned. However both are passionate enough to understand their nation aren't going to agree to get less money. Thus we're why out side won't accept that deal. Lets be honest would any of us care about the money side of things had they agreed to any deal to play each other?

Of course. I love boxing, but one thing which kills it is you have fans arguing over why the best fighter 'A' shouldn't fight the best fighter 'B', because of how the purse gets split. You sit there and wonder why the fans genuinely are happy to not see the best fight over something that earns them nothing.

At the end of the day the unions are negotiating in their interests. I think as fans of a sport the pressure should be on unions to agree to the best overall product for fans. It's partly why I find the global calendar debate so frustrating at the moment; it is in the fans interest to have a global calendar so we can see a more fair and even global and club game, where we don't have to have tours where one side has played months of exhausting rugby and the other hasn't prepared at all. Where inter-hemisphere club competitions become a greater possibility. Where as a product rugby on the whole grows.

So it drives me nuts when people seem to advocate towards their unions trying keep their proportionally large slice of the small pie intact, rather than trying to get a bigger and better pie. If there is enough interest and pressure by the public, then the seemingly immovable obstacles preventing it would move pretty quickly. It's just it seems like everyone wants to get one over on each other and it harms the product on the whole.

 

[Shaggy]

New Zealand may dominate on the pitch but England and France dominate on the financial sheets. The problem with the current NZ setup is they think their on field dominance really matters when it comes to the business side of the sport. Sorry guys but in this area, England and France hold all the cards. NZ have a point in that they are the biggest brand and very attractive to play but they have to recognize that England has the power here. NZ keep playing hardball and they will lose a lot of revenue whereas England will almost certainly be able to find a replacement with a minimal drop in the revenue.

The thing is, this isn't an isolated incident. He has also been making threats to Wales and it all just sounds like being a brat threatening everyone from a business standpoint whilst his own union is actually losing money. He seems unaware that if everyone says no, the NZ union will go bust very quickly. NZ simply can't afford to be this confrontational with their cash cows.

Once again, this is working under the assumption that all of the other major playing partners are happy to accept the status quo when it comes to playing added fixtures (those outside of the international window)

Given that the All Blacks major sponsor is US based, and that they want them to play there, I can personally see more fixtures, such as the one against Ireland, being played there.

I totally get the concept that it's about money, and that it doesn't matter to either union's balance sheet, where it comes from, so long as they get it. From the NZ view point, they want the best financial outcome, from the limited number of tests played outside of the window, and from England's, they probably want to keep the status quo, to ensure that the other nations don't also ask for more.

 

[Immenso]

We don't know the whole technicalities here so it's really hard to judge what's the right point. I think it's safe to say collective bargaining would put NZ in a better position but they'll need to get the three possibly Argentina on board first. Twickers obviously has a clear break even point no matter who we play, I very much doubt playing NZ costs us any more than playing Fiji.

So here's the problem can England sell tickets for Fiji for less than they would NZ/Aus/SA but still make more money if they gave up less of the pie? After all Fiji will be willing to accept far less money as they need it far more and I very much doubt the SANZAR nations will get them on board to better their position. Remembering also the only reason NZ can attempt this is it's an out of window one-off game so normally they'd have to lump so the SANZAR team can't just say we're not playing England this year and start negotiations from there.

Some extremely quick maths
Break even 50% of tickets, average costs 100quid if NZ want 50% and Fiji want 25%, England can afford to lower prices by 25 quid and still make the same amount of cash.
Break even 75% of tickets, average costs 100quid if NZ want 50% and Fiji want 25%, England can afford to lower prices by 12.5 quid and still make the same amount of cash.
Break even 25% of tickets, average costs 100quid if NZ want 50% and Fiji want 25%, England can afford to lower prices by 37.5 quid and still make the same amount of cash.

So in those scenarios we'd probably not do too well from a bargaining situation of a high break even threshold but the lower it is the less NZ have to play with. Somehow I think NZ may have pushed it a little too far asking for 100% more.

The collective stuff works mainly if they could refuse to play all games in the window thus making it difficult for England to sell tickets for a bunch of games against minnows one game they can probably manage(can someone enlighten me if that's the case?).

Fiji Rugby Union don't have control of their own players. They are off the table for an out of window test.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think England vastly over estimates what they contribute to the NZRU to be honest. We really don't need to play tests in England - especially when we can make similar amounts of money in other markets based on the strength on the ABs brand. If we can sell out arenas in Chicago - why take significantly less to play at Twickenham for the benefit of the RFU. I'm perfectly happy to boycott the NH unions who genuinely believe they own the game (as reflected by the above posts).

I'd say the opposite, it's nz who think they own rugby because they are the best team. All of these times it's nz rocking the boat and demanding changes to suit them. Isn't it the case that the global season proposed requires minimal change from the SH and massive changes to the nh season? It's nz demanding special treatment, nz making the ultimatums, everything in this had nz making the demands and using their brand as the excuse. Sounds to me like they seem to think they own rugby more than England...

 

[nickdnz]

I'd say the opposite, it's nz who think they own rugby because they are the best team. All of these times it's nz rocking the boat and demanding changes to suit them. Isn't it the case that the global season proposed requires minimal change from the SH and massive changes to the nh season? It's nz demanding special treatment, nz making the ultimatums, everything in this had nz making the demands and using their brand as the excuse. Sounds to me like they seem to think they own rugby more than England...

Of course it is NZ demanding changes - because the current model only benefits other unions. It's super arrogant to say that any team who requests changes to the status quo - based on an unfair model - is being at all unreasonable. I'd be interested in knowing the exact details of the proposed changes you are objecting to - or if its just an assumed unfairness.