NZRFU V RFU (Tews V Ritchie)

[Immenso]

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.

I think you are taking this far too personally. Use of the word "threats" when describing one party declining the proposed terms of an optional possible joint venture is bizarre. Why are you so angry about this?

 

[Peat]

I think you are taking this far too personally. Use of the word "threats" when describing one party declining the proposed terms of an optional possible joint venture is bizarre. Why are you so angry about this?

Fair comment this.

Two business partners can't come to terms on a deal. That's the actual story. Shrug and move on seems the rational response to me.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Shrug and move on seems the rational response to me.

"I want you to get mad!!"

 

[smartcooky]

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...

As has already been pointed out in the Global Season thread, it is the NH who have far more to gain from a Global Season that we do in the south. Here is the bulk of a post I made in that thread...

[textarea]....we have our seasons stitched up a treat. We have a clear gap between Super Rugby and the June Internationals, and another clear gap between the end of the Rugby Championship and the EOYT; and in both cases, plenty of lead in time for the International coaches to get their players together. The only place we have an overlap is with the NPC, where the the NZRU chooses to run it in parallel with the Rugby Championship. They do this for a few very good reasons.

1. All Blacks generally do not play in the NPC, so nothing lost
2. Non-playing members of the All Black squad can be given game time , like this coming weekend
3. Players on the fringe of AB selection can be kept "ticking over" and match fit in case they need to be called up, e.g. Anton Lienert Brown.
4. All Black selectors keep an eye on players who might be bolters for the EOYT, like Nehe Milner Skudder a couple of years back

So, from a competition and organisational perspective, we actually have very little to gain from the introduction of a Global Season. In fact we could have to make some awkward compromises that would disturb our very convenient set-up if it the NH ever wakes up to their current position, and that brings me to this...that in actual fact, it is the NH Unions who need a Global Season a lot more than we do.

The NH season resembles a pig's breakfast at the moment;

6N matches and domestic matches on the same weekends;
Ditto for EOYT matches;
Domestic competition matches one weekend, European Cup matches the next;
NH unions coaches complaining about not having enough prep time
Clubs and PRL complaining about losing players to International Rugby
Everyone complaining about player welfare (with the PRL using player welfare as a lever against the Unions).

Its a mess![/textarea]

As for the money, the NZRU make marginally more from playing a test to a sold-out Soldier Field in Chicago, than they are asking from the RFU for an outside the window test at Twickenham. I would be quite happy for the All Blacks to never play England in England. It will be their loss, not ours, and they will come calling before we do.

In the mean time, regular outside the window shared revenue tests in other markets will do just fine for us. Some examples might be

v France at the Superdome, New Orleans
v Ireland at Gillette Stadium, Mass
v Australia at Mile High Stadium, Denver
v Wales at Prince Chichibu Stadium, Tokyo

I'm sure all the parties involved would be happy with the extra dosh

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

what about the rose bowl or LA coliseum... if you are going to play autumn internationals in the States play them where the weather nice at least

 

[smartcooky]

what about the rose bowl or LA coliseum... if you are going to play autumn internationals in the States play them where the weather nice at least

I was thinking more along the lines of heritage for the first two on the list.

Chicago and Boston are very "Irish" cities with a strong Irish heritage. St Patricks Day in Chicago as a very big deal with a huge parade and they even dye the river green!!!

New Orleans is very French, with a very strong French heritage that goes all the way back to before the War of Independence. New Orleans was founded in 1718 by a Frenchman (Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville) and many place names in the city are French.... Treme-LaFitte, Decataur, Bienville, Marigny, St Claude, St Roch, Gentilly and many others. Vieux Carré (The French Quarter) is the centre of the old city.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

i understood what you were going for... but niche sports in the united states usually do better when the weather is better and people actually want to be outside

It would be interesting to see Montreal play host to france but I don't believe rugby is that popular there (hockey, baseball, soccer, and gridiron dominate)

I know that the superdome tried to host a game involving crusaders and saracens but USA rugby shut it down which was quite a shame

I think you are overstating how french the people of Lousiana are (less than 10,000 speak creole french, and about 2 million people are ethnically french and those aren't exactly from wealthy areas)... yes Louisiana has a french legal system and many of the names are french but very few people actively consider themselves french, unlike the irish in almost every city
for example a lot of towns in Eastern PA have german names and lots of people have german names... doesn't make the german soccer team any more popular in my area

the All Blacks should be able to sell out anywhere in the United States with a decent population since Americans love winners

and according to our latest census, California has the highest population of self-identified Irish-Americans and French-americans

 

[smartcooky]

I think you are overstating how french the people of Lousiana are (less than 10,000 speak creole french, and about 2 million people are ethnically french and those aren't exactly from wealthy areas)... yes Louisiana has a french legal system and many of the names are french but very few people actively consider themselves french,

Right, I was under the impression that Nolans were quite proud of their French heritage.

for example a lot of towns in Eastern PA have german names and lots of people have german names...

Is that the people who are sometimes referred to as "Pennsylvania Dutch" a bastardization of "Pennsylvania Deutsch" ?

California has the highest population of self-identified Irish-Americans and French-americans

Interesting fact. I did not know that.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think you are taking this far too personally. Use of the word "threats" when describing one party declining the proposed terms of an optional possible joint venture is bizarre. Why are you so angry about this?

The England game thing isn't what I'm referring to, I mean the whole not playing the Lions ever again and refusing to play out of timetable games unless they get the global calendar after 2019. Essentially NZ have said we must do as they want or they will simply stop playing anyone outside the assigned international fixtures. Also how exactly is the current system unfair? It's the NH that makes the money and not our fault if SH unions can't compete in that regard. We don't ask NZ to give half their players so we can compete on the pitch yet we need to give half the money raised because they can't raise money themselves? Even if NH teams take away 50% of the revenues from SH games, it would still be more in SH favour.

 

[Shaggy]

The England game thing isn't what I'm referring to, I mean the whole not playing the Lions ever again and refusing to play out of timetable games unless they get the global calendar after 2019. Essentially NZ have said we must do as they want or they will simply stop playing anyone outside the assigned international fixtures. Also how exactly is the current system unfair? It's the NH that makes the money and not our fault if SH unions can't compete in that regard. We don't ask NZ to give half their players so we can compete on the pitch yet we need to give half the money raised because they can't raise money themselves? Even if NH teams take away 50% of the revenues from SH games, it would still be more in SH favour.

To which NH teams do you refer ... essentially England and France. I can think of a few NH sides that would get more benefit from a global season aligned with the southern hemisphere.

In Canada, rugby is a summer sport, because it has to be (i'd imagine that Russia and Georgia face similar issues) ... I doubt that any of them are going to welcome the news that they need to be outside playing in November/December/January, in -30 to -40 degree conditions.

Yes, sometimes changes are needed for the good of the game globally, that aren't going to necessarily benefit a particular union.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Rugby's a winter sport in Russia and Georgia.
Connacht played a Russian side in the challenge cup and it was something like -20.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

To which NH teams do you refer ... essentially England and France. I can think of a few NH sides that would get more benefit from a global season aligned with the southern hemisphere.

In Canada, rugby is a summer sport, because it has to be (i'd imagine that Russia and Georgia face similar issues) ... I doubt that any of them are going to welcome the news that they need to be outside playing in November/December/January, in -30 to -40 degree conditions.

Yes, sometimes changes are needed for the good of the game globally, that aren't going to necessarily benefit a particular union.

That particular comment was aimed at Wales but was spoken to mean any side. Essentially it boiled down to NZ get a global season or NZ throw their toys out of the pram and don't play anyone outside the allotted games.

 

[nickdnz]

The England game thing isn't what I'm referring to, I mean the whole not playing the Lions ever again and refusing to play out of timetable games unless they get the global calendar after 2019. Essentially NZ have said we must do as they want or they will simply stop playing anyone outside the assigned international fixtures. Also how exactly is the current system unfair? It's the NH that makes the money and not our fault if SH unions can't compete in that regard. We don't ask NZ to give half their players so we can compete on the pitch yet we need to give half the money raised because they can't raise money themselves? Even if NH teams take away 50% of the revenues from SH games, it would still be more in SH favour.

1. I think your comments of how is it unfair - followed by 'just because our unions make the money, and under the current system SH rugby unions can't compete' probably answers your own stupid question.

2. Actually England and the NH have the system rigged in regards to players as well. It's partly why eligibility rules haven't been tightened, why there is one way traffic in regards to players going to the NH and reaping the benefit of SH unions investments.

3. The point you are missing is that England is entitled to jack-all of the ABs games outside of fixtures. If they want them they have to put up a competitive offer, don't cry about teams negotiating based on their value.

4. Frankly the system as it is - is both an unfair model and frankly unattractive. If it takes walking away to make changes, then I'd rather that than stick with the crappy status quo which only benefits a handful of unions whom really show no ambition to improve the game globally.

 

[Peat]

We don't ask NZ to give half their players so we can compete on the pitch yet we need to give half the money raised because they can't raise money themselves?

New Zealand can raise money themselves. They do so by playing very lucrative rugby games.

 

[ncurd]

1) Life's unfair, if one nation has more money than another nation it does not mean the money has to be shared out equally. Just like NZ doesn't have to play for against nation not willing to fork out what they want.

2) When was the last time a Tier 1 nation was missing what would be a first choice player under anything other than a sensible rule? This is a problem for Tier 2 nations not Tier 1.

As to the person pointing out Fiji don't have control of their player's you missed the point of post entirely you can swap Fiji with any other nation it was just to demonstrate how playing NZ and Twickenham for how much they requested might not make the most financial sense to the RFU as to playing a smaller nation.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Right, I was under the impression that Nolans were quite proud of their French heritage.



Is that the people who are sometimes referred to as "Pennsylvania Dutch" a bastardization of "Pennsylvania Deutsch" ?



Interesting fact. I did not know that.

The best way to explain it is that pa Dutch are very proud of being pa Dutch and they speak pa Dutch... Which is a bastardised version of German. I guess how it's similar to how Afrikaans are of Proper Dutch decent but consider themselves their own culture. I am from a very pa Dutch area, hometown is in fact named Hamburg. The people know they have German ancestors but consider themselves pa Dutch. I assume a similar thing happens in Louisiana. They created their own culture based off of their heritage that they connect to, not necessarily the identity of where their ancestors came from.

 

[smartcooky]

1. I think your comments of how is it unfair - followed by 'just because our unions make the money, and under the current system SH rugby unions can't compete' probably answers your own stupid question.

2. Actually England and the NH have the system rigged in regards to players as well. It's partly why eligibility rules haven't been tightened, why there is one way traffic in regards to players going to the NH and reaping the benefit of SH unions investments.

3. The point you are missing is that England is entitled to jack-all of the ABs games outside of fixtures. If they want them they have to put up a competitive offer, don't cry about teams negotiating based on their value.

This, but especially....

4. Frankly the system as it is - is both an unfair model and frankly unattractive. If it takes walking away to make changes, then I'd rather that than stick with the crappy status quo which only benefits a handful of unions whom really show no ambition to improve the game globally.

THIS!

 

[Shaggy]

That particular comment was aimed at Wales but was spoken to mean any side. Essentially it boiled down to NZ get a global season or NZ throw their toys out of the pram and don't play anyone outside the allotted games.

Essentially, everyone will get the global season, won't they? It makes sense (to me at least) that the most practical fit for the majority of rugby playing nations (not just the tier one nations, and not just the ones that can justify what they want by virtue of the economic power that they perceive to wield), is the best for the game globally.

Regardless of which unions get the most of their "wants", a global calendar will have benefits for player welfare and player availability. If someone is prepared to draw a line in the sand in order to force the issue, when most seem happy to sit on their hands, then all power to them I say.

If it's perceived by some as throwing the teddies out of the cot, i care not ... the ends may well justify the means in this case.

Once again, the NZ stance, as with all other unions (and clubs) positions, should be viewed as a starting position for negotiation, not a "I will get everything I want, or I'm walking" position

 

[Immenso]

1)

As to the person pointing out Fiji don't have control of their player's you missed the point of post entirely you can swap Fiji with any other nation it was just to demonstrate how playing NZ and Twickenham for how much they requested might not make the most financial sense to the RFU as to playing a smaller nation.

No. Using Fiji is a perfect example of how small the pool of teams capable of playing an out of window test is.

If e.g. England or Wales whoever can't come to terms with NZ, there aren't a host of other cheaper nations ready to fill the void.

There are only the othe 3 Sanzar nations, plus maybe Japan.

The cost of getting a nation without central contracting, like Fiji, Samoa, Georgia would be high. 23 x club compensation would need to be paid for starters. The logistics almost impossible, and whoever can manage it is wasting their talents and should apply to the UN for the Sec-Gen Job.

 

[smartcooky]

No. Using Fiji is a perfect example of how small the pool of teams capable of playing an out of window test is.

If e.g. England or Wales whoever can't come to terms with NZ, there aren't a host of other cheaper nations ready to fill the void.

There are only the othe 3 Sanzar nations, plus maybe Japan.

The cost of getting a nation without central contracting, like Fiji, Samoa, Georgia would be high. 23 x club compensation would need to be paid for starters. The logistics almost impossible, and whoever can manage it is wasting their talents and should apply to the UN for the Sec-Gen Job.

This is correct. Pretty much the only teams who could put together anything like a full strengh squad for an out of window test would be New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and maybe Ireland and Argentina.