Steve Tew getting the excuses in

[ranger]

The amout of people missing the point of the article completely is just staggering.

As for the aside about whether Japan should have had the cup this year, maybe it was a wiser move to wait until the japanese team is capable of actually winning a single game at its own tournament before giving it hosting rights. I don't see how seeing their team get thrashed every match would increase popularity and player numbers in a proud country like japan..

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

The amout of people missing the point of the article completely is just staggering.

As for the aside about whether Japan should have had the cup this year, maybe it was a wiser move to wait until the japanese team is capable of actually winning a single game at its own tournament before giving it hosting rights. I don't see how seeing their team get thrashed every match would increase popularity and player numbers in a proud country like japan..

I get it but its still a stupid point... Tew just sounds like an idiot, RWC is the one time every 4 years rugby is front an center and it helps the All Blacks develop a global following like Man U, The New York Yankees, Dallas Cowboys, etc... rugby and NZ need the world cup.

 

[ranger]

So it would seem that the arguement is based on, not being able to afford running the AB's for a six week comp and the loss of money from sponsers on shirts etc etc.

Don't get me wrong I fail to see why England can't play in a world cup with O2 on there shirts and make some money to the RFU etc.

Seems to be this is more to do with making threats to the IRB and getting money.

If it costs a fortune why not threaten to bail on the tri-nations and why did NZRU agree to allow the argentina team into the tournament. Seems a litle silly if your skint, you don't then add another fixture that is going to cost a fortune in travel, logistics and to compete.

Because in the tri-nations they are able to represent any sponsor they want and they get the revenue of games played. So they make a profit...
At the world cup the IRB rules out any sponsors that aren't their own, and they take the revenue and decide who gets it. Its written in these articles quite clearly.

I get it but its still a stupid point... Tew just sounds like an idiot, RWC is the one time every 4 years rugby is front an center and it helps the All Blacks develop a global following like Man U, The New York Yankees, Dallas Cowboys, etc... rugby and NZ need the world cup.

You mean like the Yankees, Cowboys and Lakers needed a world cup to develop their global following..
The All Blacks brand is at a point in market penetration where they don't need the World Cup as much as the IRB needs the All Blacks in the world cup.

Some may say that the NZRU are throwing their weight around to get money, and in a sense; rightly so. But when you look at the situation, its not necessarily a case of the innocent IRB getting held to ransom.
The IRB are operating like a crooked agent, they decide that only their sponsors are allowed and they take all the revenue before deciding who gets what. If they want to act like that then they can expect a hostile response.

 

[Saintjay]

Because in the tri-nations they are able to represent any sponsor they want and they get the revenue of games played. So they make a profit...
At the world cup the IRB rules out any sponsors that aren't their own, and they take the revenue and decide who gets it. Its written in these articles quite clearly.

I do get that mate. His whole point is based around that they can't afford to lose money by being in a world cup. Due to the lose of sponsers money, tri-nations income etc, etc. Still seems like he wants to milk the cash cow of global marketing. Hence the threats clearly aimed at the IRB and the threat to throw the toys out the pram.

In regards to your other point about Japan. As for the aside about whether Japan should have had the cup this year, maybe it was a wiser move to wait until the japanese team is capable of actually winning a single game at its own tournament before giving it hosting rights. I don't see how seeing their team get thrashed every match would increase popularity and player numbers in a proud country like japan..

If Fifa took this attitude you would never get a world cup in South Korea or other lesser nations that have provided great sporting events. If you stick with just the tier one nations no other country will ever develope. What about a RWC in Georgia, it is there national sport or say Russia where the love of rugby is getting hugh also. They might not be good at the game but I bet every game would be a sell out and the welcome would be awesome.

 

[ranger]

I do get that mate. His whole point is based around that they can't afford to lose money by being in a world cup. Due to the lose of sponsers money, tri-nations income etc, etc. Still seems like he wants to milk the cash cow of global marketing. Hence the threats clearly aimed at the IRB and the threat to throw the toys out the pram.

That doesnt really fit in with your previous statement though.. You said why would a skint nation add another fixture, and thats because that extra fixture will generate more revenue not a loss. It also helps to expand the game which is supposedly the point behind the IRB getting all the money..

They are quite clearly threats. But why label it toys out of the pram? The All Blacks brand is worth a hell of a lot of money to the IRB and their presence in the tournament is a huge money earner for them. Why shouldn't the NZRU also get a slice of the pie? (it is possible that the both make money after all.
You call it toys out of the pram, but only an idiot would just blindly accept this deal without question.

Another things that people seem to be overlooking is that regardless of the strength of the rugby team and player depth etc, aside from the game; New Zealand is a tiny island of 4 million people. To contrast, there are over 2 million registered rugby players in England.
The gulf in funds that are able to be drawn from their own country is massive when you compare those two unions. This lost money is massive for the NZRU considering its position.

If Fifa took this attitude you would never get a world cup in South Korea or other lesser nations that have provided great sporting events. If you stick with just the tier one nations no other country will ever develope. What about a RWC in Georgia, it is there national sport or say Russia where the love of rugby is getting hugh also. They might not be good at the game but I bet every game would be a sell out and the welcome would be awesome.

I get the point you're making. But giving the japanese team a few more years to develop to really maximise the chances of a successful tournament seems like it was a good idea. (and if you look at their results and stats, they are certainly on an upwards trend)

 

[blaise]

http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/wo...954/all-blacks-may-skip-2015-wcup-nzru-chief/

"We have the support of most of the major unions and a review is not only necessary but now, in our view, quite urgent"

Wonder which unions are in support.

 

[Shaggy]

I personally think Tew and a plethora of other rugby administrators are bumbling idiots... The WC provides the All Blacks with a far greater revenue stream then the 13.1 million he loses off not hosting a couple of try nations games. It provides them with world wide brand recognition which is what generates big bucks in the sports industry. The WC is the one time every 4 years where rugby is front and centre, if rugby is to grow it needs the WC. This is just an empty threat Tew is using to try to get a larger share of the revenue pie generated by the RWC. Its kind of funny how he brings this up "AFTER" NZ have hosted their money losing WC and we are going to have two WC's (England and Japan) which will probably break all prior financial records.

This is the emptiest of threats.

I guess it would be funny if he had just brought this up AFTER NZ had hosted the world cup, but the Sydney Morning herald reports the following (http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-unless-irb-makes-changes-20110928-1kw69.html)

He told Radio NZ that the NZRU had been pushing the IRB for changes to the commercial arrangements for eight years and had gone public to try to ensure the issue was finalised by 2015.

... Eight years seems a pretty reasonable amount of time for the IRB to review this to me

I do get that mate. His whole point is based around that they can't afford to lose money by being in a world cup. Due to the lose of sponsers money, tri-nations income etc, etc. Still seems like he wants to milk the cash cow of global marketing. Hence the threats clearly aimed at the IRB and the threat to throw the toys out the pram.

The same Sydney Morning Herald article also states this:

"We have the support of most of the major unions and a review is not only necessary but now, in our view, quite urgent."

... and

He said other major unions faced similar problems, estimating their combined losses at 35-40 million pounds ($55-63 million).

... So, clearly, he isn't alone in either trying to avoid a loss and get a fairer share from the IRB, or that they are the only ones that are going to be throwing the teddies out of the cot

 

[Saintjay]

That doesnt really fit in with your previous statement though.. You said why would a skint nation add another fixture, and thats because that extra fixture will generate more revenue not a loss. It also helps to expand the game which is supposedly the point behind the IRB getting all the money..

They are quite clearly threats. But why label it toys out of the pram? The All Blacks brand is worth a hell of a lot of money to the IRB and their presence in the tournament is a huge money earner for them. Why shouldn't the NZRU also get a slice of the pie? (it is possible that the both make money after all.
You call it toys out of the pram, but only an idiot would just blindly accept this deal without question.

Another things that people seem to be overlooking is that regardless of the strength of the rugby team and player depth etc, aside from the game; New Zealand is a tiny island of 4 million people. To contrast, there are over 2 million registered rugby players in England.
The gulf in funds that are able to be drawn from their own country is massive when you compare those two unions. This lost money is massive for the NZRU considering its position.



I get the point you're making. But giving the japanese team a few more years to develop to really maximise the chances of a successful tournament seems like it was a good idea. (and if you look at their results and stats, they are certainly on an upwards trend)

I think he has a valid point in regards to money from sponsers etc, every union would make money from this.

The AB's are a global brand, and known through out the world. He has thrown his toys out to some degree by making the threats when his point could have been made better. He is saying if we don't get more money we might not go. He could have made the point without the threat of pulling the AB's out of the WC. I am sure all the Unions would have supported him so every one get's a share. It is the same tactic that a number of F1 teams made a few years ago when they made threats to pull out of racing. (They got what they wanted)

It is interesting no other union has mentioned this as far as I know, I am going to assume then that a number of nations lose money at the world cup and this has been the case for a number of years. (Just read some of the posts while writing this, fare play to him for speaking out if the IRB are doing jack)

We all know that the NZ is a massive draw in rugby and the WC would be a loss without them. I would be gutted if I can't see the AB's in four years.

Out of interest you any idea why they are not able to have sponsers on the front of shirts, I can't find a reason. Pretty late here so sifting google is a pain.

 

[William18]

Reading this thread astounds me how quickly people jump to conclusions without actually reading. Perhaps next time people should follow these steps: read, think and then post. Otherwise you look foolish.

As for what Tew said, obviously we will not be boycotting the next rugby world cup. He did not exactly say "give us our way or we won't play" even though it sounds like he did. The sensible decision would be for the IRB to look at changing their financial model and to ask the other rugby unions how much money the world cup costs them and how they finance it.

 

[kovana]

No offense to the kiwis,. But there have been far too many games i have seen where there have been many empty seats.

Poor promotion. They should have lowered ticket prices.. But the NZRU are blind. They are losing money because they, the NZRU, are just out of touch with reality. This tournament should really have been held in England.. or South Africa.

NZ is too small.. Not enough finances.

 

[ranger]

I think he has a valid point in regards to money from sponsers etc, every union would make money from this.

The AB's are a global brand, and known through out the world. He has thrown his toys out to some degree by making the threats when his point could have been made better. He is saying if we don't get more money we might not go. He could have made the point without the threat of pulling the AB's out of the WC. I am sure all the Unions would have supported him so every one get's a share. It is the same tactic that a number of F1 teams made a few years ago when they made threats to pull out of racing. (They got what they wanted)

As Shaggy has just pointed out, The NZRU has tried making their point in "better" ways for 8 years.. If they had just come out of the woodwork and started threatening everyone from the get-go your point would stand.

Out of interest you any idea why they are not able to have sponsers on the front of shirts, I can't find a reason. Pretty late here so sifting google is a pain.

Because the IRB are dicks. Thats the reason pure and simple. By holding a monopoly on sponsorship rights, the IRB maximise profits for themselves. That little O2 on the England shirt would have netted them 10s of millions, but saying they aren't allowed it slightly increases the value of the sponsorship rights that the IRB are selling. Its bullshit and they deserve to be called out on it

 

[Shaggy]

No offense to the kiwis,. But there have been far too many games i have seen where there have been many empty seats.

Poor promotion. They should have lowered ticket prices.. But the NZRU are blind. They are losing money because they, the NZRU, are just out of touch with reality. This tournament should really have been held in England.. or South Africa.

NZ is too small.. Not enough finances.

All of which are valid points ... just not to this thread, or the point(s) that Steve Tew is trying to make.

Just to clarify once again ... HE ISN'T TALKING ABOUT THE LOSS YOU MAKE HOSTING THE TOURNAMENT! ... HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE LOSSES THAT JUST ABOUT ALL OF THE MAJOR UNIONS FACE EVERY FOUR YEARS, DUE TO TESTS THAT THEY CAN'T PLAY, AND SPONSORSHIP RESTRICTIONS!!!

 

[Saintjay]

As Shaggy has just pointed out, The NZRU has tried making their point in "better" ways for 8 years.. If they had just come out of the woodwork and started threatening everyone from the get-go your point would stand.


Because the IRB are dicks. Thats the reason pure and simple. By holding a monopoly on sponsorship rights, the IRB maximise profits for themselves. That little O2 on the England shirt would have netted them 10s of millions, but saying they aren't allowed it slightly increases the value of the sponsorship rights that the IRB are selling. Its bullshit and they deserve to be called out on it

Cheers for that bud, I thought that might be the case and it seems utter bull. I missed the post by shaggy writing mine and it would seem it has been said better in other papers.

In defence of other on here seeing a paper header that say's
[h=2]New Zealand have threatened to boycott the 2015 World Cup in England because of a lack of funding throughout the game. [/h]That is going to get peoples backs up, bloody press.

 

[TNT88]

NZRU raise a good point. But what is the solution?

It seems to me like more corporate support during a world cup year is what the major nations need (so the IRB need to relax their current rules). I was thinking that the IRB should use TV rights income to fund the travel/accommodation costs. But that doesn't solve the issue of "lost" income.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I think it comes down to Managing the Financial position you're currently in, drawing up a budget for the coming years that is not out of your reach and rigorously attract big sponsors at an early stage. Many countries will sit in the same boat as the Kiwi's, but by moaning about it and not trying to get everything in order won't help the cause. unless this was some sort of publicity stunt trying to attract more investors...

Most Countries were hit hard by the global recession and are only now starting to recover from it, but it's the manner in which every nation tries to use their funds where needed to give themselves the better outcome.

In South Africa there's a huge line of sponors just trying to get a deal with either the springboks or provincial side. The Boks Main Sponsor this year is ABSA bank which is part of the Barclay's group, then there's Castle Lager which is our main Beer and Alcohol provider and many many other sponsors who don't get direct mentions... British Airways are the Boks official Carrier and I would think that the Boks don't pay a lot for their first class plane tickets to anywhere...

It comes down to priorities. If you want to be in the world cup, then save up, and get your guys there no matter where on earth it is... Hell if it was on the Moon the Boks will make damn sure they get there, even if they had to build a big ass ladder to climb all the way there!!

 

[Black Heart]

Without reading the other posts so far, I'll just say that SANZAR need to man-up and tell the IRB that the All Blacks, Wallabies and Boks will not be competing in any further World Cups without being paid to do so...

 

[Saintjay]

Without reading the other posts so far, I'll just say that SANZAR need to man-up and tell the IRB that the All Blacks, Wallabies and Boks will not be competing in any further World Cups without being paid to do so...

Or mybe it is just a cunning plan to force the IRB into holding it in New Zealand every four years so you guys can win it on home soil again

.

 

[Black Heart]

Or mybe it is just a cunning plan to force the IRB into holding it in New Zealand every four years so you guys can win it on home soil again

.

That would be a bonus.

 

[Saintjay]

That would be a bonus.

Ha, a very honest answer nice one

 

[Bazzy]

Maybe this thread would have turned out better if it wasn't a New Zealander who made the points. There seems to be a lot of whinging about the All Blacks and New Zealand in general lately :\ .

Anyway I do think his points are valid. Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't IRB get all the TV rights money etc from a world cup? So I'm sure every world cup is very profitable for them. So can't see why they won't atleast allow sponsor interaction during the world cup like FIFA does. There seems to be a lot of opposition to Tew's points without any consideration to its pro and cons. I don't get this considering he is not even only talking about the NZRU he is talking about a number of major unions making losses during world cups.