Steve Tew getting the excuses in

[JW.]

Both were cut short, I believe
I know the 3N definitely was, and I thought that the SuperXV was but I've seen people say that they're continuing with the current format, or something?

Yes both Started a bit earlier but I don't see the problem in doing this once every 4 years? Ruining half a season of 3 proffesional leagues imo is a different matter, thats what the ARU + NZRU are trying anyways.

 

[Saintjay]

Your not kidding, the guy seems well off side on a few things. It is not balanced writing and neither was the article by the Telegraph that started this.

Just figured it would make interesting reading for this thread, given the other topic he did recently on England.

It seems that this guy has no love for rugby at all and uses all he can to attack others. From reading his other work I do not know why he bothers.

 

[Shaggy]

The above would ruin half a season of the French/English and Celtic league, I don't see the problem with the dates as they are now? The Tri-nations was finished as was Super-Rugby?

Yes, the super rugby season starts earlier each year, the Tri-nations was truncated to 4 matches instead of 6, and more crucially denying each nation a home test, no tours from the northern hemisphere sides (so no revenue from these matches either), no November european tours either ... all of which are some of the bigger earning avenues for the SH sides, plus a ridiculously reduced ITM cup

The IRB deserve the right to host an the RWC as they are the international rugby board, you can't let the ARU or the NZRU run the RWC as they participate in the tournament. The sponsorships deals are affecting everybody not just ARU and NZRU, just the other nations have a bigger financial budget, so can take the loss. So they aren't just trying to destroy the ARU or the NZRU. Great way of feeling sorry for yourself.

Also IMO NZRU would benefit if they let the club own the players? Like in England/France/Celtic?

Who's saying that the IRB shouldn't run the rugby world cup ... I like your idea that they should host one though ... then they'd have to subject themselves to the possibility of incurring a loss ... your absolutely right about the sponsorship policy affecting everyone though, and last time I checked, neither New Zealand nor Australia were advocating that they should be the only ones that receive the benefit from any change in policy regarding sponsorship.

... It's important to realise that neither New Zealand nor Australia are asking for any revenue that the IRB are getting from their sponsorship deals, just what they can negotiate and get benefit from their own sponsorship arrangements.

Your initial comment about how a change in the calendar will affect your own domestic tournaments, is pretty much how each of the IRB members view this issue ... what's best for themselves

 

[JW.]

Who's saying that the IRB shouldn't run the rugby world cup ... I like your idea that they should host one though

Your initial comment about how a change in the calendar will affect your own domestic tournaments, is pretty much how each of the IRB members view this issue ... what's best for themselves

Imagine the IRB hosting a RWC, they can't even manage Rugby as it stands now there would be a major fight at the end of that . But that article claimed the IRB 'stole' the RWC from ARU and NZRU and ran off with it.

I agree every IRB member will try and protect there own season, but as it stands now IMO it's fine. Both parties sacrifice something, Trinations would be shorter once a year every 4 and the Super start a bit earlier every 4. The NH comps miss there star players for 6+ weeks and lose some revenue because not as many people are coming to watch.
As I see that both sides lose a bit, but thats how it will always be the way it is now seems the easiest and fairest we can make it.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes both Started a bit earlier but I don't see the problem in doing this once every 4 years?

Because the NZRU and the ARU lose so much due to the shortened schedules that they cannot recoup enough in the other three years to cover the losses. Eventually, they will go broke.

The RFU has budgeted for an £11m loss for 2011 for the same reasons and that incudes the money they made in the warm up matches that they were able to stage because that period was between seasons for them. Effectively, the warm up matches replaced the June tours, for them.

Ruining half a season of 3 proffesional leagues imo is a different matter, thats what the ARU + NZRU are trying anyways.

Utter garbage!

Firstly, six weeks is not half a season. The NH season is 40 weeks long!!!! Six weeks is less than a sixth of the season.

Secondly, those professional leagues are running NOW, during the RWC. Top 14, Aviva Premiership and the Pro12 are running NOW!! Whats the difference between that and running it during the Cup when held from October to Novemeber? Absolutely nothing!

 

[Shaggy]

Your not kidding, the guy seems well off side on a few things. It is not balanced writing and neither was the article by the Telegraph that started this.

Just figured it would make interesting reading for this thread, given the other topic he did recently on England.

It seems that this guy has no love for rugby at all and uses all he can to attack others. From reading his other work I do not know why he bothers.

... yep, one things for sure, if Australia, New Zealand etc, didn't end up going to the 2015 RWC, it wouldn't stop him writing about it, or deriving revenue from it

Imagine the IRB hosting a RWC, they can't even manage Rugby as it stands now there would be a major fight at the end of that . But that article claimed the IRB 'stole' the RWC from ARU and NZRU and ran off with it.

Are okay, my bad ... poor choice of words, but I guess he was getting at the fact that it was the ARU and NZFU that did most of the heavy lifting to get the first RWC going, and now he perceives that its the NH unions and clubs that have the best outcomes under the present set up

I agree every IRB member will try and protect there own season, but as it stands now IMO it's fine. Both parties sacrifice something, Trinations would be shorter once a year every 4 and the Super start a bit earlier every 4. The NH comps miss there star players for 6+ weeks and lose some revenue because not as many people are coming to watch.
As I see that both sides lose a bit, but thats how it will always be the way it is now seems the easiest and fairest we can make it.

Yeah, I guess you'd be surprised to hear that I actually support the change in the calendar as suggested in the article posted by Cooky (you're shocked I can tell)

This is the window that the SH sides generally tour the NH anyway, and the domestic comps can still run (unless it's in the host country if the grounds are unavailable)

... anyway, the main issue for me is the sponsorship revenue

 

[JW.]

Because the NZRU and the ARU lose so much due to the shortened schedules that they cannot recoup enough in the other three years to cover the losses. Eventually, they will go broke.

The RFU has budgeted for an £11m loss for 2011 for the same reasons and that incudes the money they made in the warm up matches that they were able to stage because that period was between seasons for them. Effectively, the warm up matche replaced the June tours.



Utter garbage!

Firstly, six weeks on not half a season. The NH season is 40 weeks long!!!! Six weeks is less than a sixth of the season.


Secondly, those professional leagues are running NOW, during the RWC. Top 14, Aviva Premiership and the Pro12 are running NOW!! Whats the difference between that and running it during the Cup when held from October to Novemeber? Absolutely nothing!

The domestic season runs from September to May. England (Or any national side for that matter just going to take England as an example) have to prepare for a RWC, train as a squad, warmup matches etc. They would not be able to play for there clubs before the RWC in October. So add another month of Club rugby lost, then the RWC would be the 20th of November? That would mean the players would be back training with there clubs by the start of December. (If they don't take a rest) That would mean a huge loss of playing time that year for there clubs, a huge dip in revenue for those clubs as not as many people come to watch them without there stars. It's not like the NH wouldn't lose a shitload of money on that, it's just that most of that loss the clubs deal for and as they are succesfull they can take that loss. Your system is wrong, seeing Rugby is a proffesional sport now the clubs should be run as a business.

It's give and take, not just take because you can't sustain yourselfs. The way it's done now is an equal share of the load that is the RWC. Some just cope with it better than others, why should the NH take in extra losses, when the deal made is already even and fair?

I might have overreacted by saying it was half a season ruined but it's not far off. The system as it is now isn't perfect far from it, but it is as fair as it can be on both parties.

... anyway, the main issue for me is the sponsorship revenue

Agreed!

 

[smartcooky]

The domestic season runs from September to May. England (Or any national side for that matter just going to take England as an example) have to prepare for a RWC, train as a squad, warmup matches etc. They would not be able to play for there clubs before the RWC in October. So add another month of Club rugby lost, then the RWC would be the 20th of November? That would mean the players would be back training with there clubs by the start of December. (If they don't take a rest) That would mean a huge loss of playing time that year for there clubs, a huge dip in revenue for those clubs as not as many people come to watch them without there stars. It's not like the NH wouldn't lose a shitload of money on that, it's just that most of that loss the clubs deal for and as they are succesfull they can take that loss. Your system is wrong, seeing Rugby is a proffesional sport now the clubs should be run as a business.

It's give and take, not just take because you can't sustain yourselfs. The way it's done now is an equal share of the load that is the RWC. Some just cope with it better than others, why should the NH take in extra losses, when the deal made is already even and fair?

I might have overreacted by saying it was half a season ruined but it's not far off. The system as it is now isn't perfect far from it, but it is as fair as it can be on both parties.



Agreed!

Its actually an unequal sharing of the load. The current schedule has little effect if any on the NH Unions or Club, but a huge effect on the SH. The best setup was what they had in 2003, October-November. THAT schedule shared the load almost equally. What we have now does not.

As for your comment I highlighted, we didn't get to have warm up matches. We had to devalue our premier, money earning international competition and turn it into a practice competition.

And I can tell you that Newscorp, who puts up the money for it, were very unhappy, and that will impact on what we get in the next round of negotiations.

The current RWC model is a win, win, win all the way for the NH unions, and a lose, lose, lose all the way for us

The Old Farts must be chuckling into their G&Ts

 

[JW.]

Its actually an unequal sharing of the load. The current schedule has little effect if any on the NH Unions or Club, but a huge effect on the SH. The best setup was what they had in 2003, October-November. THAT schedule shared the load almost equally. What we have now does not.

You got the best warmup matches of them all, the Trinations. The NH get 2 months of low attendences, less attention to the premiership, less quality teams etc.(as it stands now) You start your SuperR a month (Ithink) earlier, don't lose any money on that get the same attendences as usual and get the same quality sides. Your Trinations was still very good to watch, high attendences and high media coverage. Some matches might have felt a bit like warm-up games, but did most of the people really care? That in my mind is the best prep of a RWC you can have.

We had to devalue our premier, money earning international competition and turn it into a practice competition.

That is also exactly what happens to the NH competitions.

Btw, lets say we start the RWC in October, the SH guys play the SuperR, Trinations and then what(?) more Warmupmatches. Your guys would be shattered come WC time?

I honestly believe this is the fairest it gets. If we start a month later, what would be your loss? Your Sacrifice? None as I can see it? Your comp runs normally as does your Trinations? Our Sacrifice another month and a half of Competitions ruined.

 

[William18]

It may be bad for the NZRU's finance but I love the shortened tri nations. With everyone playing each other 3 times it just goes on and on. The continual test matches have simply devalued the tri nations to a competition which no one cares that much about. From a purely rugby perspective, I would rather have no tri nations in a world cup year at all.

 

[William18]

You got the best warmup matches of them all, the Trinations. The NH get 2 months of low attendences, less attention to the premiership, less quality teams etc.(as it stands now) You start your SuperR a month (Ithink) earlier, don't lose any money on that get the same attendences as usual and get the same quality sides. Your Trinations was still very good to watch, high attendences and high media coverage. Some matches might have felt a bit like warm-up games, but did most of the people really care? That in my mind is the best prep of a RWC you can have.



That is also exactly what happens to the NH competitions.

Btw, lets say we start the RWC in October, the SH guys play the SuperR, Trinations and then what(?) more Warmupmatches. Your guys would be shattered come WC time?

I honestly believe this is the fairest it gets. If we start a month later, what would be your loss? Your Sacrifice? None as I can see it? Your comp runs normally as does your Trinations? Our Sacrifice another month and a half of Competitions ruined.

Incorrect. The 2011 Super 15 started one week later than the 2010 Super 15. We just played a few less tri nations games to make up for it.

 

[Intent]

Now, before I begin, forgive any misconceptions or mistakes as I watch little more than the big tournaments and the occasional pro game and have very little understanding of the politics of the IRB.

I can understand NZRU hesitance in supporting the current RWC sponsorship system if their current system causes them to lose that amount of money but boycotting the RWC seems very counter-intuitive. Any top teams that choose to opt-out of what now is the premier rugby tournament decreases its prestige and value to potential sponsors. Less money would go in and less money would come out. The RWC does great things for increasing exposure to the game - especially in minnow countries such as mine - and building a "rugby brand" that is appealing to potential sponsors at all levels of rugby. Any bar that I walk into these days in this particularly average Canadian town has a rugby game broadcasting on the wall with a few people watching intently and ten plebes asking 20 questions about the rules and the game. If broadcasters can tap into the potential viewership market in North America alone there would be more demand for Super Rugby, Magners, Heineken Cup, Currie Cup etc. etc. etc. thus increasing their value which would result in more money for the unions. I do believe this will happen as these sports are only getting more popular.

That being said, if the IRB still refuse to change their sponsorship policies, is there any fat cutting or test match scheduling that NZ and other top 10 RUs can do to save on that margin of profits. It feels off that there can't be a way to schedule more games and put to greater effect that rotation system for the national team that seems to have divided the kiwi supporters on TRF. If Canada can make it to the world cup on bake sales and unicorn wishes, there must be some way that NZ and the other top tier nations can make it work.

My apologies if this is rambling and all over the place but I'm just back from work, sick and probably should be napping.

 

[smartcooky]

You got the best warmup matches of them all, the Trinations. The NH get 2 months of low attendences, less attention to the premiership, less quality teams etc.(as it stands now) You start your SuperR a month (Ithink) earlier, don't lose any money on that get the same attendences as usual and get the same quality sides. Your Trinations was still very good to watch, high attendences and high media coverage. Some matches might have felt a bit like warm-up games, but did most of the people really care? That in my mind is the best prep of a RWC you can have.

Crap. How would you feel if the RWC was held in March, directly after the 6N, and all the 6N sides decided to put trial teams on the park? The fans would be outraged.

Remember, we rely on Tri Nations (and next year Four Nations) this to make us the cash to continue playing rugby at the top level. Super 15 makes nothing, and ITM Cup costs to run).

Attendances don't matter as much as the TV ratings. I can tell you that Newscorp were not happy, and that unhappiness will cost us at the next round of negotiations

 

[smartcooky]

Now, before I begin, forgive any misconceptions or mistakes as I watch little more than the big tournaments and the occasional pro game and have very little understanding of the politics of the IRB.

I can understand NZRU hesitance in supporting the current RWC sponsorship system if their current system causes them to lose that amount of money but boycotting the RWC seems very counter-intuitive. Any top teams that choose to opt-out of what now is the premier rugby tournament decreases its prestige and value to potential sponsors. Less money would go in and less money would come out. The RWC does great things for increasing exposure to the game - especially in minnow countries such as mine - and building a "rugby brand" that is appealing to potential sponsors at all levels of rugby. Any bar that I walk into these days in this particularly average Canadian town has a rugby game broadcasting on the wall with a few people watching intently and ten plebes asking 20 questions about the rules and the game. If broadcasters can tap into the potential viewership market in North America alone there would be more demand for Super Rugby, Magners, Heineken Cup, Currie Cup etc. etc. etc. thus increasing their value which would result in more money for the unions. I do believe this will happen as these sports are only getting more popular.

That being said, if the IRB still refuse to change their sponsorship policies, is there any fat cutting or test match scheduling that NZ and other top 10 RUs can do to save on that margin of profits. It feels off that there can't be a way to schedule more games and put to greater effect that rotation system for the national team that seems to have divided the kiwi supporters on TRF. If Canada can make it to the world cup on bake sales and unicorn wishes, there must be some way that NZ and the other top tier nations can make it work.

My apologies if this is rambling and all over the place but I'm just back from work, sick and probably should be napping.

At last a sensible post! Yes there is something that can be done.

The IRB should adopt a similar model to that which FIFA uses to run its World Cup. Non clashing sponsors should be allowed unrestricted relationships with their teams, clashing sponsors are negotiated by the actual sponsors themselves, the Unions, and the IRB act as mediators.

Also, during the six weeks of the RWC, it should be the only game in town, There should be no other professional domestic or cross border rugby competitions being played anywhere else in the world. This would require some "compression" of the remainder of the season, but the lads in the ITM Cup have shown the way. If they can play 10 rounds of round robin competition in 7 weeks with midweek games and four day turnarounds I see no reason why the big boys up north could not also do the same.

In the Northern Hemisphere,this could be achieved one of two ways;

The first, and easiest would be to play the pool stages of the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup as a mid-week competition. Six pool rounds = six weeks. The knock out stages revert to weekends.

The second is more complicated, but it would require six midweek rounds to be interspersed over the whole of the remaining season. Effectively there would be a midweek round and a four day turnaround for everyone, once per month

In the Southern Hemisphere, three things would have to happen;

Firstly, Super Rugby would be required to have short turnarounds as well, but they would have to be dispersed over the whole length of the competition due to travel distances. The schedule would need to be arranged so that each team plays their local derbies consecutively in pairs, and one of them would be midweek, e.g. Crusader play Blues in Auckland on a Saturday, and the Chiefs in Hamilton on a Wednesday, or Highlanders play Hurricanes in Dunedin on a Saturday, and the Crusaders in Christchurch on a Wednesday. This would account for three of the six weeks needed

Secondly, Super Rugby would have to start one week earlier. That accounts for four weeks.

Thirdly, the ITM Cup starts the weekend after the Super Rugby Final, and the Four Nations starts on the same weekend. That is two weeks earlier than normal, so there are the last two weeks making six weeks saved.

 

[JW.]

Crap. How would you feel if the RWC was held in March, directly after the 6N, and all the 6N sides decided to put trial teams on the park? The fans would be outraged.

Remember, we rely on Tri Nations (and next year Four Nations) this to make us the cash to continue playing rugby at the top level. Super 15 makes nothing, and ITM Cup costs to run).

Attendances don't matter as much as the TV ratings. I can tell you that Newscorp were not happy, and that unhappiness will cost us at the next round of negotiations

I couldn't be held then because the Super15 runs then + all the NH competitions. How can you not see that the way it is now, is the fairest way without to many drastic changes?

Very selective response from you imo.

ITM + SuperR doesn't earn you anything because you still let the unions pay the players wages instead of independent club rugby, which creates money. Easy examples are the NH where there aren't many money problems? And the clubs earn money each season. (unlike football )

What is your suggestion to solve this in your opinion bad situation? Holding in account it has to be fair on both parties and no major competition changes as they aren't very likely going to happen?

*edit* Just read your above post, like it but the flaw IMO is that the players would not be able to cope which such a packed season.

 

[smartcooky]

I couldn't be held then because the Super15 runs then + all the NH competitions.

I know that, it was just an example

ITM + SuperR doesn't earn you anything because you still let the unions pay the players wages instead of independent club rugby, which creates money. Easy examples are the NH where there aren't many money problems? And the clubs earn money each season. (unlike football )

You are aware, of course, that all bar a couple of the rugby clubs in Europe run at a loss every year? The only reason most of the Premiership clubs don't fold is either because they are the personal playthings of a few rich businessmen who have to bail them out every season, or because of the back-handers they receive from the RFU for the use of players in the EPS. If the RFU ever decided to contract EPS players directly and set up their own competition, (which they were looking at a few years ago when the PRL was playing hard-ball over the Long Form agreement) then most Premiership clubs would fold like a poker player with a pair of 3's at Texas Holdem' tournament. Its why the PRL caved in and allowed the 4th AI to take place each year.

The private franchising of Super Rugby was mooted here, but there were no takers, and why would there be? If the NZRU and ARU and SARU cannot make any money out of Super Rugby, what businessman in their right mind would bother with it?

*edit* Just read your above post, like it but the flaw IMO is that the players would not be able to cope which such a packed season.

Well the ITM Cup guys coped with it OK. Rugby players are supposed to be tough!!!

All we would be asking them to do is play five games every four weeks instead of four games every four weeks. The clubs would simply have to manage their squads better.

 

[ranger]

Found this little piece on the Samoan WC prep.


I don't think many people realise that its really that bad. It makes the $10,000 fine look even more harsh; perhaps for a tier 1 nation like England that would have been alright, but seeing that Samoa are already clawing the bottom of the barrel it seems ridiculous. Tuilagi has said that the mouthguard he was wearing was specifically made and fitted for his club season and he feels safer wearing it. He isn't sponsored and has never recieved money from the mouthguard company.

This also puts a new spin on the nation swapping issue. From a Wales vs England eligibility perspective it is just a matter of choosing the country you most identify with, make your bed and sleep in it etc.
For Samoa vs NZ or England in Manu Tuilagis case, its financial security, specialist training, coaching etc vs actively losing money, hauling rocks around for training and only having meaningful fixtures every four years.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

To be fair, having been to the England training camp, they have exactly the same set up outside - Tyes and prowlers and sandbags and atlas stones
It's just standard "caveman training"

 

[ranger]

To be fair, having been to the England training camp, they have exactly the same set up outside - Tyes and prowlers and sandbags and atlas stones
It's just standard "caveman training"

I doubt its the same. The samoan set up is a bit more makeshift.
Its more of a neccesity for the samoans than an option too as there is only one real gym for the Samoans in Apia. If the players want to train anywhere else they have to lift rocks, or as i have seen in some other pics, two petrol containers filled with sand tied to a stick in the place of a benchpress.

 

[Canucks]

Now, before I begin, forgive any misconceptions or mistakes as I watch little more than the big tournaments and the occasional pro game and have very little understanding of the politics of the IRB.

I can understand NZRU hesitance in supporting the current RWC sponsorship system if their current system causes them to lose that amount of money but boycotting the RWC seems very counter-intuitive. Any top teams that choose to opt-out of what now is the premier rugby tournament decreases its prestige and value to potential sponsors. Less money would go in and less money would come out. The RWC does great things for increasing exposure to the game - especially in minnow countries such as mine - and building a "rugby brand" that is appealing to potential sponsors at all levels of rugby. Any bar that I walk into these days in this particularly average Canadian town has a rugby game broadcasting on the wall with a few people watching intently and ten plebes asking 20 questions about the rules and the game. If broadcasters can tap into the potential viewership market in North America alone there would be more demand for Super Rugby, Magners, Heineken Cup, Currie Cup etc. etc. etc. thus increasing their value which would result in more money for the unions. I do believe this will happen as these sports are only getting more popular.

That being said, if the IRB still refuse to change their sponsorship policies, is there any fat cutting or test match scheduling that NZ and other top 10 RUs can do to save on that margin of profits. It feels off that there can't be a way to schedule more games and put to greater effect that rotation system for the national team that seems to have divided the kiwi supporters on TRF. If Canada can make it to the world cup on bake sales and unicorn wishes, there must be some way that NZ and the other top tier nations can make it work.

My apologies if this is rambling and all over the place but I'm just back from work, sick and probably should be napping.

Unfortunately, it's not an issue of fat cutting, it's a issue of not making any money during the world cup. No sponsors = no money except for what the IRB decides to dole out.

If no sponsors during the WC, then there needs to be more tournaments/tours but that still doesn't help the Pacific Nations who experience more costs than others because they have extra travel distance and all potential sponsors will have to be foreign as they are very small countries. Pretty much will only receive sponsorship if they play a few bigger teams during tours. Pacific Islander nations have to be very creative with generating funds.
Rugby in Canada is improving as the grassroots movement is rapidly increasing and as you pointed out, media coverage is increasing.